From: covici@ccs.covici.com (John Covici)
Reply-To: covici@ccs.covici.com
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Boutros-Ghali's Blueprint for UN World Dictatorship
Date: 13 Aug 92 4:57:30 GMT
Organization: Covici Computer Systems

Boutros-Ghali's blueprint for 
U.N. world dictatorship 
by Joseph Brewda 

On July 1, U.N. Secretary General Boutros
Boutros-Ghali issued a 48-page report to the Security
Council entitled ``An Agenda for Peace: Preventive
Diplomacy, Peacemaking, and Peacekeeping.'' The report
had been mandated by an unprecedented Security Council
heads of state summit in January, organized by British
Prime Minister John Major. It called for strengthening the
U.N.'s capacity to engage in ``preventive diplomacy,''
and called for the secretary general to make suggestions
to that end. The report, which, if implemented, would
represent a drastic violation of the current U.N. Charter,
purports to depict the potential role of the United
Nations in the changing world context. It provides
definitions of preventive diplomacy, peacemaking, and
peacekeeping, explains what post-conflict peace-building
is, and lays out a program of cooperation with regional
organizations. 
   According to a memorandum by Prof. Francis A.
Boyle, a professor of international law at the University
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, the report is a
``blueprint for the new world order,'' which ``represents
a major grab for world power by the United Nations
Security Council, which is in turn controlled by the
United States government.'' ``The implementation of these
proposals,'' he warns, ``would constitute an intermediate
stage between the current United Nations Organization and
the creation of a totalitarian world government that must
be resisted by all means at our disposal.'' 

          - Eliminating national sovereignty -
   Boutros-Ghali comes right to the point in the
introduction to his report: ``The improvement in relations
between States East and West affords new possibilities,
some already realized, to meet successfully threats to
common security.'' ``Authoritarian regimes have given way
to more democratic forces,'' he states, referencing the
success of the so-called democratization drive throughout
the Third World, and not merely the Soviet Union's demise.
He adds that much of the world is capitulating to the
Anglo-Americans' free trade policies: ``Parallel to these
political changes, some states are seeking more open forms
of economic policy.'' 
   This new world order, however, is threatened by
``fierce new assertions of nationalism and sovereignty''
which undermine ``the cohesion of states,'' through
``brutal ethnic, social, cultural or linguistic strife.''
Moreover, he warns of the supposed danger of economic
development: ``Progress brings new risks for stability:
ecological damage, disruption of family and community
life, greater intrusion into the rights of individuals.''
To this, he adds the threats of ``unchecked population
growth, crushing debt burdens, barriers to trade, drugs,''
and ``massive migrations of peoples within and beyond
national borders.'' He defines this assertion of
sovereignty, ecological damage, population growth,
resistance to free trade, and the like, as ``sources and
consequences of conflict'' which ``require the ceaseless
attention and the highest priority of the U.N.'' 
   Boutros-Ghali states that military intervention may
be required to deal with these alleged threats, because in
the new world order, threats to peace are no longer
defined as merely military ones. ``At this moment of
renewed opportunity, the efforts of the organization to
build peace, stability, and security must encompass
matters beyond military threats,'' he states. As an
example of such non-military threats, he cites ``a porous
ozone shield'' which ``could pose a greater threat to an
exposed population than a hostile army.'' 
   To deal with such threats, however, requires
eliminating previous notions of national sovereignty.
Accordingly, he proclaims, ``The time of absolute and
exclusive sovereignty has passed.'' He goes on, ``It is
the task of leaders of states today to understand this,
and to find a balance between the needs of good internal
governance and the requirements of an ever more
interdependent world.'' 
   Boutros-Ghali is well aware that these assertions
overthrow the U.N. Charter, which, formally at least,
upholds the concept of national sovereignty. Article 1,
paragraph 2, of the Charter defines as one of the U.N.'s
purposes ``to develop friendly relations among nations
based on respect for the principle of equal rights and
self-determination of peoples, and to take other
appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.''
Article 2, paragraph 7 reads, ``Nothing contained in the
present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to
intervene in matters which are essentially within the
domestic jurisdiction of any state.'' 
   Later on, Boutros-Ghali defines sovereignty as not
being the inherent right of a people, but something
contingent upon good behavior as judged by the rulers of
the world system. ``The sovereignty, territorial integrity
and independence of states,'' he states, is limited by,
and defined within ``the established international
system.'' This is the same imperialist concept of limited
sovereignty which characterized the 1815 Congress of
Vienna, the 1878 Congress of Berlin, and the 1919
Versailles Treaty. 
                                                      
               - Defining `peacemaking' -
   With these objectives, the secretary general's report
attempts to add new powers to the U.N. Security Council and
Secretariat not previously mandated in its Charter. These
include ``peacemaking,'' a new concept which Boutros-Ghali
deceptively defines as ``action to bring hostile parties
to agreement, essentially through such peaceful means as
those foreseen in Chapter VI of the Charter,'' which
pertains to pacific settlements of disputes. He also
redefines ``peacekeeping'' as ``the deployment of a
United Nations presence in the field, hitherto with the
consent of all parties concerned, normally involving
United Nations military and/or police personnel.'' 
   Commenting on these definitions, Professor Boyle
notes: ``This whole concept of `peacemaking' is bogus. It
is not provided for anywhere within the terms of the
United Nations Charter. The same can be said for
`peacekeeping,' though this notion was given the
imprimatur of the International Court of Justice. But as
originally defined, `peacekeeping' was supposed to be
purely defensive and not involve the offensive use of
force.'' 
   Boyle adds that the attempt to define peacemaking as
falling under Chapter 6, which pertains to measures taken
to pacifically solve a dispute, is another fraud. Rather,
peacekeeping falls under Chapter 6, whereas peacemaking
seems to contemplate enforcement action, which would fall
under Chapter 7, pertaining to the deployment of force. 
   Boyle also warns that the concept of peacekeeping has
been transformed, as evidenced by Boutros-Ghali's
reference to peacekeeping measures having been taken
``hitherto'' with the ``consent of all the parties
concerned.'' That is, he implies that universal consent
might no longer be required. It is noteworthy that consent
is required in measures undertaken under the authority of
Chapter 6, while deployment without consent can only be
done under Chapter 7. So, under the new definition, even
peacekeeping troops, so-called, could be deployed for
enforcement. 
   ``Hence,'' Boyle concludes, ``it seems that the
report is trying to do away with two fundamental
prerequisites that have been true for United Nations
peacekeeping forces: the consent of all states involved;
and only peaceful means for the resolution of the dispute
as envisioned by Chapter 6.'' 
   In a later section on ``sanctions and special
economic problems,'' Boutros-Ghali further blurs the
Charter's distinction between efforts to pacifically
settle disputes, and the use of force. 
   Boyle stresses that in this section the report claims
that ``peacemaking'' might require the imposition of
sanctions under article 41 of the Charter, even though the
article is contained in Chapter 7 which solely pertains to
the use of force. This formulation, Boyle says, is ``a
bald-faced lie, distortion, and obfuscation,'' which, if
allowed to pass, would represent a ``revolutionary change''
in the organization of the United Nations Charter. ``The
Charter is quite clear that the peaceful resolution of
disputes falls under Charter 6,'' Boyle explains,
``whereas sanctions and enforcement fall under Chapter 7,
which includes article 41. Here Boutros-Ghali is trying to
carve out a separate category of United Nations military
action which blurs the distinction between Chapter 6 and
Chapter 7 action.'' This would allow for a new category of
offensive military operations contrary to its Charter. 

         - Beefing up Security Council powers -
   The subordination of sovereignty to the needs of the
world order, and the creation of new categories of U.N.
offensive military operations, are not the only changes
demanded by the report. It also seeks to eliminate other
current constraints on the Security Council in respect to
its use of force. 
   To this end, the secretary general calls for the
creation of ``peace-enforcement units.'' These units would
be ``more heavily armed than peacekeeping forces and
would need extensive preparatory training within their
national forces.'' These units are another concoction that
were never contemplated in the U.N. Charter. They would
serve as a rapid deployment force under the control of the
secretary general and Security Council. In comments to the
press at the time of the issuance of the report,
Boutros-Ghali called for all U.N. member states to keep
1,000 troops in a permanent state of readiness for such
deployments. The proposal was first made by French
President Franc@alois Mitterrand at the U.N. Security
Council's heads of state summit. 
   What is particularly important is that the secretary
general claims that these troops could be deployed under
article 40 of the Charter. Professor Boyle analyzes, ``It
is a lie, a ruse, and a disgrace for the secretary general
to be arguing that the Security Council could deploy
military forces for offensive purposes under article 40.
The Charter {never} contemplated this. Rather, it was
assumed that the Security Council would go through
articles 39, 40, and 41, {before} it got to the offensive
use of military force under article 42. In other words,
the secretary general is trying to allow the Security
Council to authorize the offensive use of military force
right from the outset of a crisis, as opposed to going
through the progressive steps in articles 40 and 41.'' 
   Closely related to this innovation is Boutros-Ghali's
claim that the U.N. Secretariat's Military Staff Committee
be diminished to that of mere ``support,'' even though
article 47, paragraph 3 provides that the committee
``shall be responsible ... for the strategic direction of
any armed forces placed at the disposal of the Security
Council.'' Boyle notes that this position is consistent
with that taken by the U.S. government during the war
against Iraq, where it made clear that it, and not the
Military Staff Committee, would direct all military
operations. By moving so-called peace-enforcement units
out of articles 42 and 43 and into article 40, the
secretary general is also attempting to bypass the
oversight requirements involving the Military Staff
Committee. 
   It is important to note here that the committee is
solely staffed by representatives of the five permanent
members of the Security Council. Consequently, the effort
to bypass it indicates that the Anglo-Americans intend on
running offensive military operations by themselves, and
consider France, Russia, and China--the other permanent
members of the Security Council--as junior partners at
best. 
   What this all means in practice is this: Once a
Chapter 7 Security Council resolution authorizing the
potential use of military force passes, member-states
would remain free to deploy and command these forces as
they see fit. This is just what the United States did
against Iraq, where military forces were deployed under
the legal cover of the U.N., but under the political
control of the U.S. government. ``If actually carried
out,'' Boyle writes, ``this could give a plausible legal
basis to the United States government to use its military
forces offensively all over the world under a variety of
pretexts and justifications. The carefully constructed and
limited constraints found in the Charter on the actual use
of offensive military force would effectively become a
nullity.'' 
   In a related section dealing with ``peacekeeping
logistics,'' Boutros-Ghali states that a ``pre-positioned
stock of basic peacekeeping equipment should be
established'' all over the world, which would be
``immediately available at the start of an operation.''
This would allow the United States to pre-position
military equipment anywhere, and then draw on this
equipment for use by rapid deployment forces only
nominally controlled by the U.N. Secretariat. 

        - Subordinating regional organizations -
   In parallel with its attack on national sovereignty,
the report also attempts to make all independent regional
organizations, such as the Arab League or the Organization
of African Unity, formally subordinate to it. In a related
measure, the report attempts to define NATO as a de facto
arm of the U.N. Boutros-Ghali does this by overthrowing
Chapter 8 of the Charter, which pertains to regional
arrangements, otherwise known as regional organizations. 
   ``In the past,'' Boutros-Ghali claims, ``regional
arrangements often were created because of the absence of
a universal system for collective security; thus their
activities could on occasion work at cross-purposes'' with
the United Nations. Now, however, ``in this new era of
opportunity,'' such ``regional arrangements can render
great service.'' He adds, ``consultations between the
United Nations and regional arrangements or agencies could
do much to build international consensus ... regional
organizations participating in complementary efforts with
the United Nations ... would encourage states outside the
region to act supportively.'' 
   Boutros-Ghali's misconstruction of Chapter 8
represents yet another power grab by the Security Council.
Article 52, paragraph 2 of the Charter specifies that
regional arrangements have first crack at regional
problems, and that only once such efforts fail are these
problems to be referred to the Security Council. ``The
members of the United Nations entering into such
arrangements or constituting such agencies,'' it reads,
``shall make every effort to achieve pacific settlement of
local disputes thorough regional arrangements or by such
regional agencies before referencing them to the Security
Council.'' 
   Commenting on this section, Boyle reports, ``What the
report calls for here is for regional arrangements to act
at the lead of the Security Council, rather than the
reverse. In other words, this would subordinate the
potential for regional organizations and regional
arrangements to act independently of the Security
Council.'' 
   Boyle warns that ``under this particular type of
rationale, the Security Council might attempt to take
control of ASEAN [Association of Southeast Asian
Nations], which has not yet proclaimed itself to be a
regional organization; or the CSCE [Conference for
Security and Cooperation in Europe], etc.'' 
   In a related maneuver, the report attempts to argue
that collective self-defense pacts such as NATO, which
fall under Chapter 7 of the Charter pertaining to military
force, could be construed as also being regional
arrangements, as organized under Chapter 8. This could
potentially allow for joint U.N.-NATO operations in the
military or political sphere not envisioned in the
Charter. 

               - Reimposing colonialism -
   Yet another attempt of the report is to reintroduce
nineteenth-century style colonialism in the guise of
``post-conflict peace-building.'' 
   To this end, Boutros-Ghali argues that in order to be
truly successful, peacemaking and peacekeeping must be
supplemented by ``peace-building''--another newly
concocted term. Peace-building is defined as
``comprehensive efforts to identity and support structures
which will tend to consolidate peace and advance a sense
of confidence and well-being among people.'' The measures
taken under this broad definition include: ``disarming
previously warring parties and the restoration of order,
the custody and possible destruction of weapons,
repatriating refugees, advisory and training support for
security personnel, monitoring elections, advancing
efforts to protect human rights, reforming or
strengthening governmental institutions and promoting
formal and informal processes of political
participation.'' 
   Elsewhere in the report, he states, ``peacekeeping
requires civilian political officers, human rights
monitors, electoral officials, refugee and humanitarian
aid specialists and police,'' as much as the military. 
   Boutros-Ghali even implies that the U.N. has the
right to intervene in the domestic affairs of states in
order to foster what it deems to be democracy, as part of
this peace-building process, even when not preceded by
military conflict. ``The United Nations has an obligation
to develop and provide when requested: support for the
transformation of deficient national structures and
capabilities, and for the strengthening of new democratic
institutions. The authority of the United Nations system
to act in this field would rest on the consensus that
social peace is as important as strategic or polical
peace. There is an obvious connection between democratic
practices and the achievement of true peace and security
in any new and stable political order.'' Under this
justification, sovereign former colonies will become U.N.
trusteeships. 
   Boutros-Ghali even hints that in the future, Third
World states will no longer have control over their
natural resources. He states: ``Post-conflict
peace-building may take the form of concrete cooperative
projects which links two or more countries in mutual
beneficial undertakings, that can not only contribute to
economic and social development but is so fundamental to
peace. I have in mind, for example, projects that bring
states together to develop agriculture, improve
transportation, or utilize resources such as water or
electricity.'' 

           - Creating a U.N. colonial office -
   At the end of the report, Boutros-Ghali alludes to
the reorganization of the U.N. bureaucracy, already in
progress, which is intended to make it a more efficient
transitional mechanism for imposing an Anglo-American
empire over the world. Since his installation as secretary
general, Boutros-Ghali has undertaken the most
thoroughgoing reorganization of the U.N. bureaucracy ever.
In February 1992, the new secretary general abruptly
eliminated 14 senior posts, and restructured or eliminated
13 departments and offices. In addition to eliminating
numerous positions or departments considered to be in the
way, Boutros-Ghali has created a new undersecretary
general posting to oversee ``preventive diplomacy,'' and
another to oversee ``humanitarian affairs.'' 
   According to reports being circulated at the U.N.,
Boutros-Ghali is intent on eliminating some 20% of senior
bureaucratic positions. At the same time, the complaint is
being made that previous hiring practices had been based
on political considerations and informal quotas, whereby
certain posts would be given to nationals of certain
continents or countries. In the future, it is said,
appointments will be based solely on ``merit.'' 
   This reorganization, including the hiring and firing
of personnel, is being directly overseen by newly
appointed Undersecretary General for Administration and
Management Richard Thornburgh. Thornburgh is the former
Bush administration attorney general, and the author of
the doctrine that the U.S. Justice Department has the
right to kidnap anyone anywhere in the world. Thornburgh
has brought in the McKinsey Corp., a firm reputed to be
close to the U.S. intelligence community, to aid him in
this reorganization. The particular McKinsey official
detailed to this task is a former Reagan administration
State Department official and ambassador to Germany,
Richard Burt. 
   The U.N. Secretariat is also in the process of
upgrading and expanding a secret service, under the
pretext of the need for an ``early warning system'' to
``assess whether a threat to peace exists.'' This agency,
now covertly housed under the Department of Political
Affairs, is already receiving classified information from
some member-states, according to European reports. All
this, Boutros-Ghali alludes to under the notion of
creating a ``strong, efficient, and independent civil
service.'' 
   The secretary general also reveals that he is
prepared to create a U.N. diplomatic corps, presumably
with diplomatic immunity, stationed in states slated for
recolonization. Pleading the need for cost-efficiency, he
reports: ``I am taking steps to rationalize and in certain
cases integrate the various programs and agencies of the
United Nations within specific countries. The senior
United Nations official in each country should be prepared
to serve, when needed ... as my representative on matters
of particular concern.'' These representatives, who will
coordinate U.N. operations in their assigned states, are
modeled on nineteenth-century colonial Residents. 

From Executive Intelligence Review V19, #31.

----
         John Covici
          covici@ccs.covici.com

Xref: sparky alt.activism:14821 talk.politics.misc:39676