Les Relations des Jésuites contiennent 6 tomes et défont le mythe du bon Sauvage de Jean-Jacques Rousseau, et aussi des légendes indiennes pour réclamer des territoires, ainsi que la fameuse «spiritualité amérindienne».

samedi, avril 24, 2010

apter 2

Disarmament and Submission

A world effectively controlled by the United Nations is one in which "world government" would come about through the establishment of supranational institutions. The present UN Charter could theoretically be revised in order to erect such an organization equal to the task envisaged, thereby codifying a radical rearrangement of power in the world. (1)

* * *
National disarmament is a condition sine qua non for effective UN control. The overwhelming central fact would still be the loss of control of their military power by individual nations. (2)

- Lincoln P. Bloomfield (CFR), 1961 U.S. Department of
State Study Memorandum NO. 7, A World Effectively
Controlled By the United Nations.

In Stage III progressive controlled disarmament would proceed to a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force. (3)

- U.S. Department of State document, Freedom From War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World, 1961

The fact is, I see no compelling reason why we should not unilaterally get rid of our nuclear weapons. (4)

- Paul H. Nitze (CFR), former U.S. arms control negotiator in 1999 New York Times op-ed

Following World War I, a powerful cabal of one-world internationalists offered humanity a "solution" to the horrible ravages of war: world government. The League of Nations was their instrument of salvation and U.S. President Woodrow Wilson was their prophet. (These individuals and groups will be examined further in the next chapter.)

"The dream of a world united against the awful wastes of war is deeply imbedded in the hearts of men everywhere," Wilson proclaimed. Wilson believed that "all nations must be absorbed into some great association of nations." (5) The new League he proposed would provide "collective security," i.e., it would use collective force against designated "aggressors," through some undefined instrumentality.

The U.S. Senate, however, refused to ratify the League of Nations Covenant. Americans were suspicious of entanglements with the constantly warring European powers and wanted no part of submersion in a world super-state. They saw through the sophistry and the seductive "peace" appeals. Any League strong enough to "enforce peace" globally would also possess the power to impose tyranny worldwide. There would be no way to limit its power.

Without U.S. membership, the League of Nations was doomed. However, in the wake of the even more massive death and destruction wrought by World War II, the organized one-world forces succeeded in pulling the United States into the League's successor, the United Nations. In the decades since, these advocates of a "new world order" have been working assiduously to invest the United Nations gradually with legislative, executive, and judicial powers that will transform it into a global government.

From the viewpoint of these "Insiders," who plan to be the rulers of this new world government, providing the UN with unchallengeable military power is a paramount objective. Tragically, very few Americans realize that the post-World War II "arms control" process and the various "arms control" treaties to which we are party have been designed to achieve precisely that objective. And this incredible scheme is far closer to final fruition than most Americans would ever imagine.

A Damning Piece of Evidence

Professor Lincoln P. Bloomfield of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is very important to our consideration here for his revelations about this conspiracy for world conquest. Unintended revelations, we hasten to add. Dr. Bloomfield is the author of one of the most critical and damning pieces of evidence to fall into our hands concerning the conspiracy by Insiders in our own government to destroy the United States and subject the American people, along with the people of all the world, to an all-powerful United Nations.

What is so astounding is that even four decades after this scheme was discovered and exposed, Dr. Bloomfield and his co­conspirators are not only still free (in fact they have never even been officially investigated) but are actively pursuing the same criminal scheme. Even more extraordinary still, as the reader will soon see, the treasonous scheme Bloomfield devised is quite obviously still serving as a guiding light to official U.S. policies.

We are referring to the secret 1961 study Dr. Bloomfield authored for the Kennedy State Department entitled Study Memorandum No.7, A World Effectively Controlled By the United Nations. The title itself is startling, but the contents are absolutely shocking for their audacity and treachery.

In the study's opening summary, Professor Bloomfield writes:
A world effectively controlled by the United Nations is one in which "world government" would come about through the establishment of supranational institutions, characterized by mandatory universal membership and some ability to employ physical force. Effective control would thus entail a preponderance of political power in the hands of a supranational organization. The present UN Charter could theoretically be revised in order to erect such an organization equal to the task envisaged, thereby codifying a radical rearrangement of power in the world. (6) [Emphasis added.]
Dr. Bloomfield continued:
The principal features of a model system would include the following: (1) powers sufficient to monitor and enforce disarmament, settle disputes, and keep the peace - including taxing powers; (2) an international force, balanced appropriately among ground, sea, air, and space elements, consisting of 500,000 men, recruited individually, wearing a UN uniform, and controlling a nuclear force composed of 50-100 mixed land-based mobile and undersea-based missiles, averaging one megaton per weapon; (3) governmental powers distributed among three branches; (4) compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court. (7)
In this blueprint for global tyranny financed by the U.S. government, Bloomfield repeatedly stated a key point, that "it is world government we are discussing here - inescapable." (8) And he leaves no doubt that the scheme would mean subjecting the U.S. to this omnipotent "contemplated regime" (his words). (9) He emphasizes, for instance, that:
National disarmament is a condition sine qua non for effective UN control.

The essential point is the transfer of the most vital element of sovereign power from the states to a supranational government.

The overwhelming central fact would still be the loss of control of their military power by individual nations. (10)
Dr. Bloomfield lamented that it would be extremely difficult to sell this program for world government to the American people. However, it would be possible, he wrote, if our national leaders utilized "a grave crisis or war to bring about a sudden transformation in national attitudes sufficient for the purpose." The MIT professor went on to suggest that "the order we examine may be brought into existence as a result of a series of sudden, nasty, and traumatic shocks." (11)

The Bloomfield scheme is as old as tyranny itself: Create a crisis and then offer a solution. That solution always entails, of course, "temporary" seizure of total power.

Official "Disarmament" Plans

Dr. Bloomfield's study was not just a professorial pipe dream destined to be unread and forgotten in some musty, dusty archive. (*) It describes what has become the operational policy of the U.S. government. Bloomfield, we should point out, was, and is, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and it was his fellow CFR members in President Kennedy's CFR-dominated State Department who initiated the official implementation of this scheme.
* See;;
.In 1961, the Kennedy Administration promulgated the now­infamous disarmament plan entitled Freedom From War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World. Also known as Department of State Publication 7277, this plan, which is very similar to the Bloomfield study, presented a three-stage program for the transfer of U.S. arms to the United Nations.

During Stage II (the stage we are currently in), the document mandates: "The U.N. Peace Force shall be established and progressively strengthened." (12) This will be accomplished "to the end that the United Nations can effectively in Stage III deter or suppress any threat or use of force in violation of the purposes and principles of the United Nations." (13) This incredible, treasonous policy - which has been actively but quietly brought along toward completion during successive administrations - concludes as follows:
In Stage III progressive controlled disarmament would proceed to a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force. (14) [Emphasis added.]

Pause and reflect for a moment on the enormity of the audacity and treason involved in such an incredible plot. It says that under the system it envisions, "no state" (meaning no country, including the United States) would be able to challenge the UN's power. This means that the U.S., like every other nation, would become a vassal of an omnipotent UN.

Who would actually be in control of this power? Thomas Jefferson wisely admonished: "In questions of power let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution." (15) No human being or group of human beings should be entrusted with the kind of power contemplated here. Are we to believe that perhaps the UN is populated with angelic beings? Anything but! The tower on New York's East River is better known as Terrorists, Tyrants, and Thugs R'Us. This "House of Peace," remember, regularly erupts in obscene exaltation for Fidel Castro, "Butcher of Tiananmen Square" Li Peng, and other leaders of the most brutal regimes in history.

The disarmament scheme's leading proponents in the U.S. government have publicly sworn oaths to uphold our constitutional form of government and to defend it against all enemies foreign and domestic. These same individuals straight-facedly pretend to be doing exactly that, and the vast majority of Americans innocently take them at their word. After all, these are "respected statesmen" whose names and faces have become familiar and who have been anointed by the Establishment media and political powers. Surely they would not betray us. Yet, that is precisely what they have done and are doing.

We do not use the terms treason lightly or loosely; we mean it in the precise and literal sense intended by the Founding Fathers. According to our Constitution: "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." (16) The Freedom From War plan manifestly fits this definition. It would render all Americans subject to a foreign power (the UN) controlled by one-world internationalists who have made no secret of their hostility toward our system of government, and by totalitarian regimes that clearly mean us harm.

Freedom From War was amplified in April 1962 by another disarmament document entitled Blueprint for the Peace Race: Outline of Basic Provisions of a Treaty on General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World. As before, its third stage calls for the strengthening of the UN Peace Force "until it had sufficient armed forces and armaments so that no state could challenge it." (17)

That is where the current CFR leadership in the Bush admin­istration, working together with the heirs of Gorbachev and Yeltsin in Moscow, are planning to take us with the current round of disarmament talks and the ongoing push to arm the United Nations with a standing army. Their true intent is not the elimination of weapons, but the transfer of weapons and military forces from nation states to the UN, creating a monopoly of power that will enable them to enforce their envisioned new world order.

A Strange Alliance

On October 19, 1994, former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev released the "Final Report of the Global Security Project" at the CFR's Pratt House headquarters in New York City. (18) The Global Security Project (GSP) is a joint effort of the Gorbachev Foundation and the CFR. Besides our same Dr. Bloomfield, other CFR "security experts" on the project include Richard Falk, Saul Mendlovitz, Jonathan Dean, Jeremy J. Stone, and the arch-subversive Daniel Ellsberg (of the Pentagon Papers infamy). They were joined by the late Senator Alan Cranston, a long-time pro­Communist, (19) a past president of the World Federalists, and a member of the Trilateral Commission.

The Gorbachev/CFR GSP Report calls for the creation of a UN "readiness force" provided by UN member states. It proposes "drastic cuts by nuclear weapons states to the level of 100 nuclear warheads, to be achieved within ten years, by 2005 A.D." (20) These reductions would be made "irreversible" by the transfer of all weapons-grade "fissile material" to the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). It also recommends that the UN Security Council press all other nations likewise to place their nuclear facilities under UN control - or face "joint punitive action." (21) In line with the Bloomfield study and Freedom From War, the GSP calls for the worldwide abolition of conventional armed forces by nation-states. (22)

For those who still can't recognize the obvious, James Garrison, co-founder and president of the Gorbachev Foundation/USA, candidly admitted the game plan in a 1995 newspaper interview. "Over the next 20 to 30 years, we are going to end up with world government," he said. "It's inevitable," Garrison continued, " ... through this turbulence is the recognition that we have to empower the United Nations and that we have to govern and regulate human interaction." (23)

An "Independent" Commission?

In the spring of 1995, shortly after the release of the GSP Final Report, another one-world volley pushing the same global disarmament program came in the form of Our Global Neighborhood, the report of the "independent" Commission on Global Governance (CGG). The CGG includes among its august membership former presidents and prime ministers, many of whom are also leaders of the Socialist International, the principal global organization of Marxist parties promoting world government and East-West convergence. (24) Our Global Neighborhood was released on the eve of the United Nations Social Summit in Copenhagen, Denmark. The influential CGG report insists that the UN and other international institutions must be vested with ever greater legislative, executive, and judicial powers - includ­ing new regulatory, taxing, police, and military capabilities including a standing UN "peace force."

Interestingly, one of the CGG's key consultants/advisors for this report was again our same Dr. Bloomfield. In the years between his 1961 study and his efforts for the GSP and CGG reports, Bloomfield continued to serve the world government cause: teaching at MIT, serving as director of global issues for the National Security Council, sitting on international panels, and authoring additional pleas to empower the UN. He is like hundreds of other CFR members who rotate in and out of "government service" to prestigious (and profitable) positions in finance and consulting (for instance, Goldman Sachs, Chase Manhattan, the Blackstone Group, or Kissinger Associates), academe (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Stanford, MIT, Johns Hopkins, etc.), think tanks (CFR, the Brookings Institution, the Institute for International Economics, Rand Corporation, the Woodrow Wilson Institute, etc.) or the corporate world, which includes many top Fortune 500 companies whose boards of directors and top officer slots have become heavy with CFR members.

Harlan Cleveland

Also serving with Bloomfield as consultants to the CGG were CFR members Michael Clough, Peter Haas, and Harlan Cleveland, (25) a notorious pro-Communist security risk in the Kennedy Administration, who helped draft the Freedom From War program for U.S. disarmament. (26) Mr. Cleveland was one of the early UN "founders" at the 1945 San Francisco Conference. In the student yearbook at Princeton University, he listed himself as a "Socialist." (27) Later, he wrote articles for Pacific Affairs, the journal of the Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR), an infamous Soviet espionage operation that played a critical role in delivering China to the Communist forces of Mao Tse-tung. The IPR was described by the Senate Judiciary Committee as "an instrument of Communist policy, propaganda and military intelligence." (28) While Cleveland was deputy chief of the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration mission in Italy, that organization helped implement "Operation Keelhaul," the treasonous and brutal betrayal that delivered nearly five million Europeans to Stalin's death squads and concentration camps. Cleveland's boss at UNRRA was Soviet agent Harold Glasser. (29) Cleveland was later appointed U.S. ambassador to NATO. As we will see in ensuing chapters, he is typical of the one-world subversives who have penetrated and infested the top levels of the federal government for several decades.

Mr. Cleveland has kept active writing and speaking on behalf of the UN, international socialism, and world government over the past half century. In 1976, he authored The Third Try at World Order: U.S. Policy for an Interdependent World, published by the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia and the Aspen Institute, both of which are longtime advocacy centers for world government, intimately linked with the CFR.

In that book, Cleveland laments that the first try at "world order" collapsed with the failure to secure U.S. entry into the League of Nations and that the second failure resulted from a United Nations that was not invested with sufficient authority and power to enact and enforce world law. (30) According to Cleveland, the "third try," now underway, is an attempt to arrive at "world governance" piecemeal, by strengthening the UN to deal with various globAll "crises" involving, for instance, "the global environment," "food reserves," "energy supplies," "fertility rates," "military stalemate," and "conflict in a world of proliferating weapons." (31)

Power of the Purse Supports the Sword

Planners such as Cleveland recognize that transferring arms alone is not enough to establish a standing UN army. That and other UN schemes require a steady revenue stream that is not beholden to the nation states that the UN seeks to dominate. Since 1991, Cleveland has served as president of the World Academy of Art and Science.

In 1995, besides contributing to the CGG's Global Neighborhood report for the UN Social Summit in Copenhagen, Cleveland also headed up an international cast of scholars to produce a special UN anniversary issue of Futures, the prestigious journal of forecasting. Entitled "The United Nations at Fifty: Policy and Financing Alternatives," the report proposed a number of schemes for global taxation. In his lead-off essay, Cleveland asserted that "we will be relying more and more [on the UN] for peacekeeping and peaceful settlement, for the promotion of fairness in the human family, and for fostering human development. Financing the UN is no longer an issue to be ignored, bypassed, or swept aside. It is high time we looked hard at how best to finance a widening range of international functions that grows more obviously necessary with every passing year." (32)

Rather than relying on "the worn-out policy of year-to-year decisions by individual governments" on how much of their citizens' money to give to the UN, said Cleveland, "what's needed is a flow of funds for development which are generated automatically under international control." (33) He suggests, for instance, UN taxes on passports, on international travel, on ships (for the use of international waters), on international financial transactions, on emissions of CFCs, CO2, methane and other gases. (34) When it comes to the potential sources of global taxation, said Cleveland, "the list is limited only by the human imagination." (35)

That naked admission should strike terror into the heart of every taxpayer familiar with the imaginative capabilities of one­world socialists like Cleveland. In typical socialist fashion, these globalists see every productive human effort as a taxable activity, a potential "revenue stream" for the UN.

The global tax proposal that has won the most support is the so-called Tobin Tax (after Nobel Laureate economist and CFR member James Tobin), which would raise hundreds of billions of dollars annually by taxing international financial transactions. The Tobin Tax and other proposed global taxes would radically rearrange the entire international system, transferring one of the most important elements of national sovereignty to global institutions and providing the UN with independent and unaccountable revenue sources that would enable its constant expansion.

In the past decade, these proposals have gone from the purely theoretical to near practical reality. Yet most Americans have no idea that such schemes are even in the offing. How can it be that something so imminent and monumentally important could be so completely unknown? Harlan Cleveland explains it this way:

"Over the years, a good deal of thinking has been done, mostly below the surface of public attention, on this whole subject." (36) (Emphasis added.)
You see, in the elite circles of power in which Cleveland and his CFR associates operate, the internationalists have been discussing and refining these one-world schemes for many years. They do not spring it on the general public, though, until they have lined up winning support for it. It's called getting your ducks in a row.

New World Army

Besides conspiring to deliver our nuclear arsenal to the UN, one­world architects like Cleveland, Bloomfield, et al, also have been pushing full tilt to build a globe-straddling UN conventional army. Everyone who wasn't hibernating for the past 10 years or stranded on a desert isle has heard of Operation Desert Storm, the massive, U.S.-Ied, UN-sanctioned 1991 invasion of Iraq, which President George Bush (CFR) declared was necessary to liberate Kuwait, stop the "naked aggression" of Saddam Hussein, and promote "a new world order." (37)

But how many people have heard of, or remember, Operations Desert Spring, Laser Strike, Northern Watch, Southern Watch, Eagle Eye, Joint Falcon, Joint Forge, Deliberate Forge, or Determined Forge? Probably not very many. And yet these are all ongoing multinational military operations - in Iraq, Kosovo, Bosnia-Herzegovina - involving large numbers of U.S. military personnel and assets.

And how many people have heard of, or remember, Operations Shining Hope, Noble Anvil, Desert Fox, Desert Thunder, Bevel Edge, Noble Obelisk, Joint Endeavor, Deliberate Guard, Determined Guard, Decisive Enhancement, Decisive Edge, Desert Strike, Desert Focus, or any of the dozens of other UN, NATO, and other multilateral deployments of U.S. armed forces throughout the world over the past decade?

A May 2000 report prepared for the Joint Chiefs of Staff notes: "Since 1990, the United States military has participated in more than 90 'named' operations around the world." "Of these," it states, "more than 55 involved the deployment of a substantial number of forces to combat operations, peacekeeping missions or humanitarian endeavors." (38) Such missions have been costly. According to the General Accounting Office, these missions, which it calls "Operations Other Than War" (OOTW), will cost taxpayers $4.7 billion for Fiscal Year 2000. These wars that are no longer called wars have cost $21.3 billion since 1991. (39)

These costly "operations" rob dollars from our defense budget, which should be reserved for protecting America's national interests. In fact, there is no constitutional authority for our military to be used for any other purpose than national defense. Besides consuming scarce defense dollars, the UN OOTW capers have greatly strained our weapons and personnel resources. In July 1999, Congressman Floyd Spence, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, warned:

Over the last nine months, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have concluded that the ability of the U.S. armed forces to meet the requirements of the National Military Strategy entails "moderate to high risk." This disturbing assessment was made even before Operation Allied Force commenced in the Balkans. As a "major theater war," Operation Allied Force overextended the U.S. Air Force, placing heavy demands on aerial refueling, reconnaissance and electronic warfare units. This "high-risk" strategy is unacceptable. Unless our nation fields the forces and provides the resources necessary to execute the National Military Strategy, we will surely inherit a more dangerous world in which America's credibility and resolve are put to the test with alarming frequency. (40)
"An Air Force that is today fort y percent smaller than it was in 1990," noted Chairman Spence, "committed over 40% of its as sets to Operation Allied Force, a higher percentage than was committed during Operation Desert Storm." (41) Rep. Spence quoted General Michael Hawley, who was Commander of the Air Combat Command during Operation Allied Commando "We cannot continue to accumulate contingencies," warned General Hawley. "At some point, you've got to figure out how to get out of something." (42)

But more "hot-spots" keep cropping up. Coups, revolutions, wars, and conflicts - in Fiji, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Congo, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Nigeria, Rwanda, Kosovo, Bosnia, Cyprus, Lebanon - guarantee opportunities galore for the global interventionists running U.S. foreign and military policy. Not surprisingly, these "opportunities" are being cited by one-world advocates as proof of the need for a standing UN Army.

On May 15, 2000 Representative James McGovern (D-Mass.) introduced a resolution calling for the establishment of a 6,000­strong UN force that could quickly be deployed to conflict situations worldwide. According to McGovern, "a lot of lives could have been saved" in East Timor if the UN had been equipped with such a force. (43) "This force will allow the Security Council, subject to a US veto, to deploy well-trained peacekeepers within 15 days of a resolution," McGovern said. (44) His proposed UN Rapid Deployment Police and Security Force would only be for short-term deployment ("a few months," he says) while more permanent coalition forces are assembled. (45)

As we will see in future chapters, this effort to crea te a per­manent UN army is gathering steam, with all the usual CFR puppeteers orchestrating a global "consensus." Tragedy and tumult provide pretexts galore for intervention. Often these con­flicts have been fomented in the first place by Communist­trained guerrillas who have strong UN support. And, as we shall see in Chapter 9, United Nations intervention frequently adds to these tragedies by helping the worst tyrants crush their opposi­tion and solidify their power.



1. Lincoln P. Bloomfield, A World Effectively Controlled By the United Nations (Washington, D.C.: Institute for Defense Analyses, 1962), p. iv. 2. Bloomfield, pp. 23, 25.
3. Freedom From War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World, (Washington: Department of State Publication 7277, 1961), pp. 18-19.
4. Paul H. Nitze, op-ed: "A Threat Mostly to Ourselves," New York Times, October 28, 1999.
5. Charles P. Howland, Survey of American Foreign Relations 1928, (New Haven: For Council on Foreign Relations by Yale University Press, 1928), p. 237.
6. Bloomfield, p. iv.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid., p. 1.
9. Ibid., p. 3.
10. Ibid., p. 23.
11. Ibid., p. 22.
12. Freedom From War, p. 18.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid., pp. 18-19.
15. Lewis C. Henry (ed.), Best Quotations for All Occasions (Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett Publications, 1964), p. 45.
16. U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 3.
17. Blueprint for the Peace Race: Outline of Basic Provisions of a Treaty on General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World, (United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency Publication 4, General Series 3, Released May 1962), p. 33.
18. "Remarks by Mikhail Gorbachev on the Release of the Global Security Programme Findings on October 19, 1994 at the New York Council on Foreign Relations," Global Security Programme: Final Report of the Global Security Project (The Gorbachev Foundation/Moscow; The Gorbachev Foundation/USA; Rajiv Gandhi Foundation, October 1994), p. 3. 19. See: "Investigation of Un-American Activities in the United States," ("Hearings before a Special Committee on UN-American Activities, House of Representatives, Seventy-eighth Congress, First Session, on H. Res. 282"), (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1943), p. 3386); Frank A. Capell, "Alan M. Cranston," The Review Of The News, February 17, 1971; Gary Allen, "Alan Cranston: The Shadow In The Senate," American Opinion, June 1974, pp. 1-17.
20. Global Security Programme: Final Report of the Global Security Project (The Gorbachev Foundation/Moscow; The Gorbachev Foundation/USA; Rajiv Gandhi Foundation, October 1994), p. 3.
21. Ibid., pp. 3, 15.
22. Ibid., pp. 17-20.
23. James Garrison, interview in SF Weekly, May 31-June 6, 1995, quoted in The New American, October 30, 1995.
24. Our Global Neighborhood: The Report of the Commission on Global Governance, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995).
25. Ibid., pp. 372,374.
26. Frank L. Kluckhohn, Lyndon's Legacy: A Candid Look at the President's Policymakers (New York: Devin-Adair, 1964), pp. 194-195. See also: William J. Gill, The Ordeal of 0110 Otepka (New Rochelle, New York: Arlington House, 1969), especially Chapter XIV "Cleveland. "
27. Francis X. Gannon, Biographical Dictionary Of The Left, Consolidated Volume I (Belmont, Mass.: Western Islands, 1969), p. 281.
28. "Institute of Pacific Relations," Report of the (Senate) Committee on the Judiciary, Eighty-Second Congress, Second Session, July 2 (legislative day June 27), 1952, p. 223.
29. Kluckhohn,pp. 197,200-201; Gannon, p. 281. Regarding the "Operation Keelhaul" betrayal itself, see: Julius Epstein, Operation Keelhaul: The Story of Forced Repatriation from 1944 to the Present (Old Greenwich, Conn.: Devin­Adair, 1973); and Robert Welch, The Politician (Belmont, Mass.: Belmont Publishing Co., 1964).
30. Harlan Cleveland, The Third Try at World Order: U.S. Policy for an Interdependent World, (New York: Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, 1976), p. 2.
31. Ibid., Chapter 2. "Nobody in Charge," pp.5-9.
32. Harlan Cleveland, "The United Nations: Its Future is its Funding," Futures, March 1995, p. 109.
33. Ibid., p. 110.
34. Ibid., p. 111.
35. Ibid.
36. Ibid.
37. George H. W. Bush, "Presidential Address: Bush Announces War on Iraq, Assures 'We Will Not Fail,' " reported in Congressional Quarterly, January 19, 1991, p. 197.
38. "U.S. Participation in Military Operations, 1990-Present," a May 2000 report prepared for the Joint Chiefs of Staff by the General Accounting Office, quoted in William F. Jasper, "New World Army," The New American, July 3, 2000, p. 10.
39. Ibid.
40. Floyd Spence, "Chairman's Views... ," Military Readiness Review, July 1999, p. 1.
41. Ibid., "The U.S. Air Force and Kosovo."
42. Ibid.
43. Sean Scully, "Armed Troops Sought for UN," Washington Times, June 1, 2000, as posted on Global Policy Forum - UN Security Council webpage: on 03/13/01, but no longer available. See
44. Ibid. No longer available.
45. Ibid. No longer available.

Archives du blogue