Gun Control,  United Nations

Whose Side Are They On?

                                       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?
                                                    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 traveled 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 labeled 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 further entanglement 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.

Related Posts:

Leave a Reply