From: covici@ccs.covici.com (John Covici)
Reply-To: covici@ccs.covici.com
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: When the UN Talks of "Peace" Get Ready for War
Date: 13 Aug 92 4:56:14 GMT
Organization: Covici Computer Systems

When the U.N. talks about
`peace,' get ready for war
by Joseph Brewda

As the moment of writing, the new U.S.-led drive
to reopen the war with Iraq seems to have been temporarily
put on hold. After a three-week standoff, the Iraqi
government agreed on July 26 to allow United Nations
chemical warfare inspectors to search its Agricultural
Ministry building in Baghdad, which a U.S.-led U.N. team
claimed was used to house chemical warfare secrets.
Speaking to reporters a few hours after the Iraqi
agreement, however, President George Bush threatened that
the crisis was only temporarily resolved. ``The real test
of his [Saddam Hussein's] behavior will be in the
future,'' he said. ``The international community cannot
tolerate Iraqi defiance of the United Nations and the rule
of law; there's too much at stake.'' 
   Later that day, Defense Secretary Richard Cheney
announced that the United States has the right to strike
Iraq unilaterally, any time it sees fit. ``We always have
the option,'' Cheney told NBC News, ``if the President
makes the decision, to once again use military force to
enforce those U.N. resolutions.'' Cheney also said that
the assassination of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was a
``legitimate'' objective, as defined by these same
resolutions. 
   Meanwhile, the British Foreign Office issued a
statement gloating, ``Saddam Hussein grossly miscalculated
the resolve of the international community ... the courage
and tenacity of the U.N. team has paid off.'' 
                         
           - A tool of Anglo-American policy -
   The latest extravaganza surrounding Iraq is in part
intended to aid Bush's foundering reelection effort.
However, it also highlights the fact, which many in the
Third World suspect, that the United Nations Organization
functions as an arm of the U.S. State Department and
British Foreign Office. Under the pretext of evicting Iraq
from Kuwait in 1990, the Anglo-American-led U.N. forces
occupied Arab Gulf states' oil fields--a plan former
Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had first advocated in
1975. Since the 1991 war, the Persian Gulf's oil sheikhs
have agreed to the permament stationing of British and
American troops in the region, supposedly to protect them. 
   The various U.N. resolutions passed against Iraq
since that time, moreover, target not merely the Arabs,
but are intended to set a precedent for Anglo-American
operations everywhere. Under the claim that the Iraqis
were repressing the Kurds, for example, the U.N. stationed
troops inside northern Iraq. The argument here, stated for
application elsewhere, is that ``human rights'' supersede
``national sovereignty.'' Under the alleged necessity to
cripple Iraq's ability to produce weapons of mass
destruction, the U.N. has supervised the destruction of
computers and lathes, and has banned all Iraqi research in
radiation physics and chemistry. 
   In another message to the world, the
Anglo-American-led U.N. continues to attempt to return the
world to the days of medieval barbarism. It is continuing
its murderous embargo against Iraq, now in its 23rd month, a
siege which is murdering an estimated 1,000 people per
day. The U.N.'s barbaric war itself killed an estimated
500,000 Iraqis, mostly civilians, while annihilating
Iraq's power grid, sewage system, and food warehouses, all
cited as legitimate military targets.        

             - Reorganization of the U.N. -
   To make the United States into a more appropriate
body through which they can rule the world, the
Anglo-Americans installed a new secretary general in the
fall of 1991, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, a former Egyptian
foreign minister and a life-long British agent. Shortly
thereafter, former Bush administration Attorney General
Richard Thornburgh was made Undersecretary General for
management, the U.N.'s number two-post. The duo are now
carrying out the most thorough reorganization in U.N.
history. 
   To aid this process, British Prime Minister John
Major convened an unprecedented Security Council heads of
state summit in January 1992, which called for the U.N. to
undertake a new mission: ``preventive diplomacy.'' Major,
who described the summit as a ``turning point in world
history,'' ordered the secretary general to come up with
concrete proposals to implement this new mission. 
   The secretary general's response to this demand, ``An
Agenda for Peace,'' carves out new categories of offensive
U.N. military operations, outside even the nominal
constraints currently existing within the U.N. Charter. The
document also calls for expanding and upgrading U.N.
intelligence capabilities. Additionally, the document
calls for forming a U.N. rapid deployment force, and goes a
long way toward forming a U.N. diplomatic service whose
ambassadors to Third World states would acquire the status
of nineteenth-century British colonial residents.      

              - Regional wars proliferate -
   In order to force through this transformation, the
Anglo-Americans are provoking or manipulating wars
everywhere, while simultaneously claiming that only the
U.N. or similar international bodies are fit to deal with
them. At the same time, the British are duplicitously
circulating the line that the only way to contain the
United States, now that its chief rival, the Soviet Union,
has collapsed, is through increasing the powers of the
United Nations. 
   These Anglo-American manipulated wars and
insurgencies include: 
   @sb^{{The Balkans.}} This war, the first in Europe
since World War II, is not some ``natural'' result of the
collapse of communism; it was deliberately triggered by
the Bush administration. In July 1991, Secretary of State
James Baker traveled to Belgrade, Serbia (also the capital
of the former Yugoslavia) to announce that the United
States officially supported the continuing existence of
Yugoslavia, despite the fact that Croatia and Slovenia had
already declared their independence. With this go-ahead,
Serbia invaded Croatia, and then Bosnia, systematically
committing mass murder of civilian populations. To further
incite the Serbs, the United States, together with Britain
and France, condemned Germany's diplomatic recognition of
Croatia and Slovenia, and blocked European efforts to
intervene. 
   Then, in the spring of 1992, after Serbia's genocide
had shocked the world, State Department spokesmen suddenly
began claiming that Europe's failure to stop Serbia
demonstrated the need for supranational bodies like the
U.N. to assume broader powers. Shortly thereafter, Deputy
Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, a former business
partner of Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic, attended
a NATO foreign ministers' meeting in Brussels in May, and
demanded that NATO invade Serbia under the supposed
authority of the U.N. and the Conference for Security and
Cooperation in Europe (CSCE). 
   @sb^{{The Caucasus.}} A war between Azerbaijan and
Armenians living in the Armenian enclave of
Nagorno-Karabakh within Azerbaijan, is now threatening to
spark a general Armenia-Azerbaijan war. This war, in turn,
is intended to ignite a war between Turkey, which is
allied with Azerbaijan, and Iran, which is allied with
Armenia. The Armenians were lured into laying claim to
Nagorno-Karabakh because of Russian, French, and American
guarantees, and then were betrayed; now the Turks
foolishly believe they have a deal with the same powers.
U.N. forces might be deployed here soon. 
   @sb^{{Cambodia.}} The Anglo-Americans and French have
repeatedly subverted Japanese and regional efforts to
bring peace to this troubled land. Now, in a
precedent-setting measure, 16,000 U.N. troops and 4,000
police and civilian officials have been deployed
throughout the country, imposing a de facto U.N.
trusteeship over a formerly sovereign nation. 
   @sb^{{El Salvador.}} A 1,000-member U.N. mission has
been deployed to this state under the pretext of ending a
civil war. The U.N. team's objective, in the words of U.N.
official Alvaro de Soto, is the ``demilitarization of
society and the reform of the Armed Forces.'' The
U.N.-imposed peace accord has forced the government into
power-sharing with the narco-terrorist Farabundo Marti@aa
Liberation Front (FMLN), a model for what the United
States wants to impose throughout Central and South
America. 
   The slogan of the Anglo-Americans in all these
crises, and the others they are inflaming, is that the
upsurge of ``irrational'' nationalism following the
collapse of Soviet power, requires supranational
institutions to restore order. 

                - Third World delusions -
   Yet, at the same time that this polemic is being
waged, the British are also covertly arguing that the
demise of Soviet power threatens to create a unipolar
world dominated by the Americans. The British argument to
European and Third World diplomats is that only the
expansion of U.N. powers can deal with American efforts to
undermine their sovereignty. 
   Unfortunately, many European and Third World circles
are susceptible to this con- ob, since they believe that
the only problem with the U.N. is that it has been hijacked
by Anglo-American or American interests. Actually, the U.N.
has always acted against sovereign nation-states and the
rule of law, ever since its foundation by Winston
Churchill, Josef Stalin, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. 
   As far back as 1980, Lyndon LaRouche warned
against these delusions. In a presidential campaign
statement at that time, ``Why the United Nations Can't
Stop War,'' LaRouche also outlined what steps must
actually be undertaken to prevent global wars, centering
on building a community of principle among sovereign
republics, and eliminating British influence throughout
the world. 
   ``The U.N.O. does not have the means to prevent war,''
LaRouche warned. ``The delusion that a League of
Nations, a United Nations Organization, or some similar
concoction might prevent general war is a delusion which
must surely tend to lead to World War III, just as surely
as the delusion of the League of Nations contributed in an
essential way to fostering World War II.'' He also
emphasized that the U.N. ``must not be given the kind of
increased supranational authority which might appear to
some misguided persons as a remedy for the U.N.O.'s defects
on this account.'' 
   ``At this moment,'' he noted--as true today as in
1980--``the leading reflection of British and allied
oligarchical policy is policies associated currently with
the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, as well as
the notorious Club of Rome. These are the policies which
demand devolving of industrial progress in the
industrialized nations, and implicitly genocidal forms of
imposed relative backwardness among developing nations. To
tolerate such policies is itself to make general war as
well as more localized bloodbaths inevitable. Therefore,
there is no supranational body of law which could
accommodate both the British and humanist law under the
same law. Unless British law is eradicated from ruling
influence among the principal powers of the world, and
among affairs of nations generally, war is inevitable,
irrepressible.'' 
         
From Executive Intelligence Review V19, #31.

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

Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.individualism,talk.politics.misc