From: lwb@cs.utexas.edu (Lance W. Bledsoe)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.constitution,talk.politics.guns
Subject: JBS Bulletin - January 1993
Followup-To: poster
Date: 7 Jan 1993 13:00:35 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: im4u.cs.utexas.edu



                        The John Birch Society
                               Bulletin

                 Less Government, More Responsibility,
                And - With God's Help - A Better World

                        No. 404 - January 1993

                     Uncle Sam, Not Uncle Globocop
                          by John F. McManus


Outgoing President George Bush, as determined as ever to "reinvigorate" 
the United Nations so that it "performs as envisioned by its founders," 
announced on November 25th his willingness to commit tens of thousands 
of U.S. troops to the tragic nation of Somalia Thus began another major 
step toward the UN's acquisition of global power.

No one disputes the fact that tens of thousands of Somalis have died or 
are about to die. Our own television newscasts, aided by dramatic 
photos in newspapers and magazines, have driven images of emaciated 
children and rotting corpses into the consciousness of virtually every 
American. No one who has any sense of decency can fail to be persuaded 
that "something" must be done.

But what? Is it the responsibility of the United States to answer the 
UN's call for military assistance to alleviate the suffering? Can our 
troops accomplish such a goal for more than a few days? Should our 
leaders place the conduct of U.S. foreign policy under the UN's ever 
widening umbrella? The answer to each of these questions is a 
resounding No.


                     It's All Wrong-and Dangerous

It is not the responsibility of the U.S. government to settle fights 
between tribal warlords in Somalia no matter how many human beings they 
victimize. And it must be remembered that although much has been made 
of drought conditions in Africa, local Somali leaders and their 
followers are responsible for the death tolls, not some natural 
disaster.

A nation of 4.5 million, Somalia has endured fierce fighting among 
indigenous clans since President Barre was ousted by a coup in 1991. As 
frequently happens in such circumstances, the coup leaders then turned 
on each other. Warring bands have forced two million natives off their 
lands, prevented farmers from planting crops, and destroyed livestock. 
Observers expect that a minimum of one-third of the population has 
perished or will perish before mid-1993. Huge amounts of food aid have 
been sent to the nation but up to 80 percent of these shipments have 
been stolen and kept from needy recipients.

A few days after Mr. Bush announced his intention to dispatch troops, 
U.S. Ambassador to Kenya Smith Hempstone sent a strongly worded message 
to his superior at the State Department claiming that the planned 
deployment would be a fruitless and expensive gesture. "The warlords 
will fade away and wait us out," he warned in his December 1st 
dispatch. "Then when we leave, they will go back."

Instead of seeking new ways to build the world body's authority and 
prestige, our leaders should be completely disentangling this nation 
from any and all UN ties. But Mr. Bush has indeed found a new way to 
boost the UN with Operation Restore Hope. This latest UN action sets a 
precedent that will almost surely be used to further erode national 
sovereignty. Henceforth, suffering people within the borders of a 
supposedly sovereign nation can expect the world body to intervene on 
their behalf.

Might such a precedent be cited in the future to deal with real or 
imagined claims of oppression issued by militant American Indians? Or 
Jesse Jackson-inflamed Blacks? Homosexuals? Homeless? Unemployed? 
Worriers about ozone depletion, global warming, acid rain, etc.? Could 
the day not be too far off when the UN authorizes troops from other 
nations to settle squabbles within our own borders?


                      A Wide Array of Dissenters

While he was far from alone in strongly questioning the President's 
decision, Ambassador Hempstone's comments were the most forceful and 
high-ranking. In blunt language he likely expected would never reach 
the media, he challenged the Bush plan, asking, "To what end? To keep 
tens of thousands of Somali kids from starving to death in 1993 who, in 
all probability, will starve to death in 1994 (unless we are prepared 
to remain through 1994)?"

The former executive editor of the Washington Times added: "I do not 
think Somalia is amenable to the quick fix so beloved of Americans " He 
recommended instead that the Somalis be left alone "to work out their 
own destiny, brutal as it may be."

Hempstone's advice strikingly parallels a similar assessment given in 
1989 by our nation's military attache at the U.S. embassy in Mogadishu. 
As he ended his tour of duty in the Somali capital, Colonel Girardi 
stated, "Sooner or later, the country will be thrown into prolonged and 
violent tribal conflict and no amount of U.S. assistance will change 
that."


Then, in a surprising departure from his usual course, columnist James 
J. Kilpatrick sharply parted company with Mr. Bush. His December 5th 
column correctly noted that proper U.S. policy calls for sending in the 
troops when "clear national interests are at stake and all recourse 
short of war have been exhausted." But what about the situation in 
Somalia? Pointedly noting that he supported U.S. military intervention 
in Grenada (1983) and Iraq (1991), Kilpatrick then wrote, "The blunt, 
inescapable answer is that the national interest of the United States 
is not involved in any way in Somalia."

In his December 6th column, Carl Rowan also supplied some sound 
perspective when he cited Thomas Jefferson's belief that our nation 
should avoid all "entangling alliances." It was gratifying to see the 
following in print:

    More and more, this world body is asking the United States to 
    become  the policeman of a  violent and troubled world, even in 
    places where  national sovereignty would be violated  and U.S. 
    troops would be  viewed as the forerunners of a new -       
    imperialism.

    We are seeing an unprecedented injection of U.S. military into a    
    faraway land strictly for  humanitarian" reasons. That's hard to 
    believe  and difficult to support willy-nilly.

Rowan may have missed the point when he suggested that the UN asked the 
United States to do the policing. And he may have meant only "very 
surprising" when he claimed that Mr. Bush's description of the mission 
as solely "humanitarian" was "hard to believe." But, as shall be noted 
later in this analysis, the Administration's insistence that 
humanitarian reasons alone prompted Operation Restore Hope is literally 
"hard to believe."

Joining these two columnists in expressing dismay over the use of our 
troops in Somalia were several members of Congress who had been strong 
backers of U.S. military action in Iraq. Rep. John Murtha (DPA) loudly 
complained about the cost, the "fundamental change in policy" that has 
the Administration deploying troops when there is no "national threat," 
and the positioning of the U.S. as "the policeman of the world." 
Similarly, Sen. Hank Brown (R-CO) spoke out about the absence of any 
military threat and the presence of a "dead end" in the Somali venture.


                              The UN Role

After President Bush announced his willingness to send our military 
into Somalia, the UN Security Council rushed to pass a resolution 
authorizing the move and also authorizing the Secretary-General and the 
participating member states "to make the necessary arrangements for the 
unified command and control of the forces involved...." That unified 
command is to be under U.S. control.

Ever-mindful of the need to pay lip service to its own Charter that 
forbids the UN "to intervene in matters which are essentially within 
the domestic jurisdiction of any state," the December 3rd resolution 
claimed that the situation in Somalia "constitutes a threat to 
international peace and security." That kind of label could be attached 
to anything that occurs anywhere.

The United Nations already had a large contingent of non-military 
personnel in Somalia to distribute humanitarian assistance and to act 
as "peacekeepers." Operation Restore Hope, however, is the first 
UN-authorized intervention in a country's internal affairs with a 
mandate to use offensive force if necessary. (Although UN troops were 
used in the early 1960s to crush the tiny anti-communist country of 
Katanga, they were deployed with the assurance that they would not 
interfere with that country's internal affairs.) The UN Resolution for 
deploying forces in Somalia authorizes the U.S. military to use "all 
necessary means to establish as soon as possible a secure environment 
for humanitarian relief operations." If shooting is necessary, shots 
will be fired. American service personnel may be killed or wounded in 
the process, but the UN's prestige and power will be enhanced.

In our view, this is another instance when the Insiders in this nation 
have taken advantage of an incident to build the power and prestige of 
the United Nations. Strange though it may seem to some, the policy of 
America's leaders for close to 50 years has been to use the UN both to 
build the world body and to destroy the sovereignty of every nation - 
including our own. These Insiders have no loyalty whatsoever to 
America; they want world government. If the incident in Somalia hadn't 
been assessed as more attractive than the ongoing carnage in Bosnia, 
Mr. Bush would probably have decided to send our troops to Bosnia-and 
then helped to obtain a UN resolution to authorize the move.

And, if it hadn't been Somalia or Bosnia, then it could have been 
Liberia, Nagorno-Karabahk, Haiti, India, Cambodia, or numerous other 
nations overrun with civil unrest or humanitarian catastrophes.


                          Adding More Red Ink

From the earliest days of the John Birch Society, Robert Welch 
frequently pointed to the Conspiracy's ability to obtain "multiple 
gains" from the activities it spawns. While Operation Restore Hope will 
indeed build the power and prestige of the UN, no one should overlook 
another plus for the Conspiracy that seeks to destroy our nation and 
make of it a mere province in a satanically-inspired world government.

To that conspiratorial goal must be added the cost of this operation 
that will add billions to an already horrendous national debt. It will 
be welcomed only by those who want to see our nation continue down the 
path to fiscal suicide. At a time when every department of government 
should be cut back in order to wipe out the annual deficit and begin to 
retire the national debt, the Insiders have arranged for another 
extremely expensive adventure on the other side of the globe.

At our Society's founding meeting in 1958, Mr. Welch outlined the plans 
of the conspirators of that day to take advantage of a then-current 
incident to further their domestic agenda. He spelled out the first of 
ten gains he felt these enemies were seeking to achieve as follows: 
"Greatly expanded government spending ... for foreign aid, for every 
conceivable means of getting rid of ever larger sums of money-as 
wastefully as possible."

More unnecessary spending has to be considered as one of the "multiple 
gains" sought by the Conspiracy with this decision to create Operation 
Restore Hope. Could America be destroyed by debt? Yes indeed. If we 
continue to do nothing but add to our red ink totals, the day is not 
too far off when the dollar will be repudiated, first by foreigners, 
and the "saviour" offered to us will be world currency under the UN. If 
we are forced to accept UN world currency, we will have abandoned any 
pretense of national sovereignty.

Both the recent presidential candidacy of Ross Perot and some new books 
about the frightening consequences of America's massive indebtedness 
have brought many Americans to an awareness of the seriousness of this 
situation. But both Perot and the books in question fail to outline the 
proper way out of the financial mess into which we have been put. Once 
again, the John Birch Society has the correct answer with TRIM and its 
emphasis on the House of Representatives.


                       Clinton Equally Committed

President-elect Clinton has put his stamp of approval on all that the 
Bush Administration has done regarding Somalia and the UN. Though he 
will surely inherit a situation where our troops are deployed in this 
faraway country, he finds no difficulty with any of the objections 
raised about the operation.

Why should he? As a sitting member of both the Council on Foreign 
Relations and the Trilateral Commission, he has eagerly surrounded 
himself with the thinking and the personnel of each for many years. He 
may, in fact, be more heavily disposed toward CFR and TC goals than his 
soon-to-be predecessor, a proclivity he seemed to be telegraphing with 
his mention of the debt he owes to Carroll Quigley during his speech 
last summer accepting the Democratic Party's nomination.

Even before his cabinet and senior advisers have been named, it is safe 
to say that the disastrous course being pursued by our nation's leaders 
will continue. The way to stop the treachery and climb out of the 
entanglements already in place is through the educational program of 
our Society. William Jasper's new book, Global Tyranny... Step By Step, 
has arrived at a most propitious moment. When anyone expresses the 
naive belief that the UN is needed, or that it is doing a good job, 
this book will help to expose the reality of the world body.

Having read this book thoroughly, I can assure you that it is 
attractive, easy to understand, thoroughly documented, and frightening. 
It contains some sorely needed lessons about the wonders of the 
American system now in grave jeopardy. Its many photos will entice a 
casual reader to become a serious reader. It even addresses in its very 
first chapter the Insiders' plan to create a UN standing army to deal 
with whatever the UN decides "constitutes a threat to international 
peace and security." Will this book help to recruit more members for 
JBS? It certainly will!

If we recall Mr. Welch' s admonition to watch for "multiple gains," we 
will have no trouble realizing that the current UN-authorized action in 
Somalia will also be cited as reason to create such a standing army for 
the world body. It took the New York Times only two days to follow Mr. 
Bush's November 25th decision to send troops to Somalia with an 
editorial entitled "Help the U . N . Arm for Peace . " Arm for peace? 
George Orwell's Newspeak lives!

Exciting plans have already been created to counter the Conspiracy's 
latest move and build the resistance needed to save this nation. See 
what we are planning on page 11. Let's start 1993 off with a really 
intense determination to undermine UN popularity, wake up many 
Americans, and take our own leap forward toward breaking the 
Conspiracy's grip on this nation. It can be done.


The JBS Bulletin, January 1993
-- 
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Lance W. Bledsoe        lwb@im4u.cs.utexas.edu        (512) 258-0112  |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy