From: ad626@yfn.ysu.edu (Steve Crocker)
Subject: Has the U.N. Become a Front for New World Order Imperialism?
Organization: Youngstown State University/Youngstown Free-Net
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:31:57 GMT


WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THE U.N. ?

In recent months, a disturbing rumor has been circulating among populist
circles about a coming military coup against the sovereignty of the 
United States - a coup employing U.N. troops and aided by internationalist
elements within our own government which have long sought to create a "one
world government". With all due respect to the very real and patriotic 
concerns which these folks display for the continued independence and
Constitutional government of our nation, I feel that they have become 
the victims of a myth. I believe that the bi-partisan Imperial faction
within our oligarchy is far too firmly in control of the day to day 
processes of government to resort to such a clumsy, stupid and 
fundamentally unnecessary maneuver. The one looming event on the horizon
which lends a shred of plausibility yo such a scenario is the "December 
surprise" - in which tightened banking regulations threaten to expose 
for all to see the long-standing fundamentally unsound condition of a
number of our major banks. I think, however, that the establishment will
deal with that problem employing the possibly apocryphical method of 
cooking a frog - in which the poor creature is placed in a pot of 
water and the heat is increased with exquisite slowness, until the 
frog is cooked without ever realizing the presence of a threat. Such
gradualism and obscurantism is much more characteristic of oligarchical
control mechanisms, at least since the sixties, than overt noticible acts.


But myth is not the same as falsehood. A myth is a rendering in symbolic
form of a truth whose literal features may be too comples and/or obscure
to be communicated directly. I am beginning to suspect that such a truth
may underly the myth of a militarily resurgent U.N. I suppose the first 
significant sign was the one that was so large that it was difficult to 
see - that being Bush's insistence on the use of the U.N. as a mechanism
for validating his imperial adventure in the Persian Gulf. For anyone 
familiar with Bush's credentials both as a spook and an oligarch this 
should have already signaled a policy shift toward the U.N. as a "front
organization" for the oligarchy's imperial ambitions. 

More recently, there have been little things here and there. The other 
night I was watching CSPAN while a gentleman whose name I do not recall 
reported on a private commission report on reorganizing the administrative 
machinery of the Executive branch of the U.S. government. This individual, 
formerly an assistant Secretary of State under Jimmy Carter, focussed his 
discussion at one point on a proposal to budget a ongoing funds for 
"peacekeeping" operations as part of the Pentagon budget. He supported this 
proposal with the observation that U.N. peacekeeping operations should now 
be expected to be ongoing in a variety of trouble spots around the world,
and that the President should not be required to go to Congress for funding
on an ad hoc basis everytime a new crisis emerges. Mentioned as current or
prospective arenas for such intervention were Somalia, Yugoslavia, 
Mozambique and a quite large projected future operation against the 
Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. 

In another blip on the screen, again from CSPAN, I was watching Judge
Lacey at his press conference on the BNL investigation when he mentioned
in passing his inverview with former Attorney General Richard Thornburgh,
who he mentioned "is now Undersecretary for Administration up at the U.N."
Now I have not had the energy or stomach to keep current about the details
of the various alleged and known shenanigans of this individual. I do, 
however, recall him as the originator of the "Thornburgh Doctrine" which
provides the legal theory for the enforcement of U.S. law by U.S. military
or civilian agents for acts committed by foregin nationals on foreign soil,
arguably the most clear and forthright assertion of U.S. imperial 
perogatives since the days of Teddy Roosevelt. I had not heard of this 
character since he mercifully failed in his bid for the Senate from 
Pennsylvania. Apparently the U.N. is a good place to hide garbage that has 
become too odorous to be kept on public display in American political life.
One wonders what less well known but equally toxic waste the Bush 
administration may have dumped there.

And now comes the "liberal" Washington Post with its call to "reform"
the "bloated" U.N. bureaucracy to stamp out "waste", "fraud" and 
"corruption". To paraphrase Hermann Goering, when I hear the word "reform" 
I reach for my keyboard. In the 11/30 - 12/6 issue of the National Weekly
Edition, the Post features articles by William Branigan and Keith B. 
Richburg detailing a litany of U.N. abuses. Well, you may ask, what's
wrong with that. Haven't you just all but accused the U.N. of participating
in a naked power grab? Maybe they could use a little "reform" and 
"accountability". The unanswered questions of course, are "reform by
whose standards" and "accountability to whom". 

The aspect of such articles that always appears as a red flag to me, is
their universal unwillingness to deal with questions of policy. They
promote the false assumption that reform of an administrative process 
can be considered in isolation from the real-world political questions
of internal organizational power relationships. Large governmental 
bureaucracies are never monolithic, the bureaucratic paradigm to the
contrary. Behind the official facade of organizational values 
democratically arrived at being administered by neutral "technicians", 
the reality is quite different. Such bureaucracies are invariably a web
of factions, each with their own agenda, and each trying to accomplish 
through day to day administrative decisions what they have either failed
to achieve, or achieved in name only, through the overt political machinery.
In such an environment, any call for "reform" should be seen as a political
weapon, to be wielded by one faction or coalition against their opponents. 
Thus, when such an article appears, the immediate question I would ask
is "who is trying to get rid of whom". 

We see a few clues in this article. Perhaps the easiest to decode is 
found in the statement that Secretary General Boutrous Boutrous-Ghali
is an advocate of reform, even to the point of "battling his own staff".
Since Boutrous-Ghali is well known to be an advocate of a more activist
military role for the U.N., this clue fits with the hypothesis that the 
"reform" movement is intended to break down institutional barriers to 
such activity. A confusing element here, however, is that Boutrous-Ghali
declined to be interviewed for this article, forcing the writer to depend
on an earlier interview he had given to a London-based Arabic language 
newspaper.

Others interviewed for the article include:
Ronald Spiers - former U.N. Undersecretary General
Bo Jerlstrom - deputy director, Nordic U.N. Project
Andrei Kozyrev - Russian Foreign Minister
Alan Gerson - former counselor to the U.S. U.N. delegation
Dennis Goodman - former U.S. deputy assistant Secretary of State 
                 for international organizational affairs

Naturally, nothing is said regarding the political affiliations or 
views of any of these individuals.

One other possible clue to the hidden agenda of the movement to "reform" 
the U.N. bureaucracy is found near the end of the second article, 
which discusses waste and fraud in African relief operations:  

"But there is another factor at work, a far more sensitive one for the
United Nations as it tries to maintain the delicate balances of a 
self-described "multicultural organization". According to a number of
U.N. officials, regional or national "mafias" withibn the U.N. system
help protecttheir members' interests and sometimes exert pressure to 
overlook wrongdoing or mismanagement for political reasons or in the
name of "geographic balance" within the organization."

"There is an American mafia, a French mafia, a Danish mafia, but the 
most active clique, U.N. officials say, is known as the African Mafia,
a group of senior African officials in the U.N. bureaucracy who wield 
enormous influence, especially in recruitment and promotions."

Reading behind the lines here, it is not difficult to identify, at 
least tentatively, this "African mafia" as a faction which has sought 
to establish an institutional base within the U.N. and use it as a
lever to promote greater attention to the needs of African nations
and a counterweight to the vast financial and military resources of
the neo-colonial powers of the developed world. It seems entirely 
likely that this group stands as an instutional obstacle to full
U.N. complicity in serving as the liberal face of "New World Order"
imperialism. 

In posting this specualtion to the Net, I am hoping to provoke a 
little more than just empty discussion. I would ask first of all, 
for anybody who believes these specualtions may have merit, to 
dissiminate them as widely as possible, both on and off line. Those
who are already in ongoing contact with the U.N. regarding Somalia,
or other issues might want to raise these questions with your 
correspondents. Further, I hope some of you may be moved to do some
of your own research. Possible areas of investigation include:

Who are the Americans in the U.N. administrative structure? What 
are their political connections within the U.S.? Is there evidence 
of a migration of U.S. imperialists into the U.N. bureaucracy during
the Bush Regan years. (But don't overlook "liberal" world government
advocates with ties to the Anglo-American financial elite).

What are the factions within the U.N.?  What policy outlooks are they
identified with ?

What are the mechanisms by which U.N. military operations are 
administered? To what extent is there genuine accountability for
the use of such force to the citizens of the member nations? What
is the general situation regarding openness versus secrecy surrounding
U.N. military activities? 

What identifiable groups are currently pressing for "reform" of the 
U.N.? Can we infer a political agenda, either from the financial 
backing of such groups, the political affiliations of their spokesmen,
or the specific bureaucrats they target?

Any info on these matters will be appreciated. I would urge you to
either post it here, or email it to me with permission to include it
in a compilation of responses. 

-Steve Crocker
12/10/92
aq817@Cleveland.freenet.edu

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.news-media,alt.censorship