BEYOND
THE BROMIDES
Looking
behind the bromides, however, and wiping away all the drooling
drivel about "global togetherness" oozing out of the coverage
of this signal event, the real story of a world on the brink
of war is there to be read. As potentates and despots, royal
emissaries and presidential envoys rose to speak, one after
the other, virtually each and every one of them made some
allusion – albeit subtle – to the private agendas
behind the facade of public amity. The Western agenda was
front and center at this conference, and President
Clinton directly addressed it in his remarks. This agenda
was little noted in the American media, except as a backdrop
to the failing Middle East "peace process." Yet buried in
Clinton's speech – buried, that is, at least as far as
the news coverage of it was concerned – was a truly ominous
proposal for a standing UN army. Bemoaning the inability of
the UN to intervene in Africa, as well as the Balkans, the
President declared that the globo-crats must have "the tools
to deter challenges" to their authority. These "tools" of
"peace" are nothing less than the weapons of war:
"One
answer to this problem would be to say: we should not ask
the UN to do what it is not equipped to do. Our answer should
be: let us equip the UN to do what we ask. We need better
machinery to ensure UN peacekeepers can be rapidly deployed,
with the right training and equipment, the ability to project
credible force, and missions well-defined by a well functioning
headquarters. To meet this challenge, we must also more effectively
deploy civilian police to UN missions."
WILSON
REDUX
In
short, what the UN needs is a standing army. Not since Woodrow
Wilson has the internationalist anthem been sung from a presidential
podium as loudly and explicitly. Chiming right in, British
Prime Minister Tony Blair laid out the terms of the new globalist
initiative with his usual hectoring belligerence:
"We
need UN forces composed of units appropriate for more robust
peacekeeping that can be inserted quickly, rather than whatever
the Secretary-General's staff has been able to gather from
reluctant member states. This means a new contract between
the UN and its members. We must be prepared to commit our
forces to UN operations. The UN must alter radically its planning,
intelligence and analysis, and develop a far more substantial
professional military staff. When the moment comes, a field
headquarters must be ready to move, with an operational communications
system up and running immediately rather than weeks into the
deployment. The Brahimi report is right. We should implement
it, and do so within a twelve month timescale."
THE
INTERNATIONALISTS' INTERNATIONAL
The
"Brahimi report" refers to a UN document that calls for not
only beefing up "peacekeeping" operations, but also for centralizing
command and control of UN forces in a permanent
military structure. The Clintonian-Blairite call for a
more "robust" UN military capacity echoes a demand made by
the UN Millennium Assembly, a coven of accredited "NGOs" –
"nongovernmental organizations" who support the UN in their
respective countries, a kind of Internationalists' International.
But the NGOs are more radical than Clinton (and even the rabid
Blair) can afford to be, at least for the moment: in typically
Orwellian language, the would-be framers of a New World Order
demand that every nation give up its arsenal of nuclear and
conventional weapons – and that every citizen of every
nation be similarly disarmed. Everyone is forced to give up
those big bad evil weapons – everyone but the UN, that
is, which will be equipped with a "standing Peace Force."
This "Peace Force" will, of course, never make war, it will
only engage in "peacekeeping," i.e. put down rebellions against
the emerging World State – robustly and rapidly but not
too ruthlessly.
BILL
CLINTON: CHEST-BEATING BARBARIAN
The
brazen hypocrisy and outright evil of Bill Clinton was on
full display for all the world to see and hear, as he dared
to beat his chest over the alleged "victories" of internationalism
over its Balkan and Middle Eastern enemies:
"One
essential lesson of the last century is this: There are times
when the international community must take a side – not merely
stand between the sides. For when good and evil collide, even-handedness
can be an ally of evil We faced such a test and met it when
Slobodan Milosevic, tried to close the century with a final
chapter of ethnic slaughter. We have faced such a test for
10 years in Iraq. The UN has approved a fair blueprint spelling
out what Iraq must do. It must be enforced for the credibility
of the UN is at stake. We face a. clear moral test today in
Burma, where a popular leader who has struggled peacefully
for dialogue has once again been confined, with hey supporters
imprisoned and her country in distress, all in defiance of
repeated UN resolutions. On each of these matters, we must
not be silent."
GENESIS
OF THE WORLD STATE
The
first sentence of the above peroration describes how a world
state is today being generated: the UN has gone from mediator
to judge-jury-and-executioner in less than a generation. From
its original Charter, which unmistakably protects the sovereignty
of member states, we are progressing to a higher stage in
the evolution of global governance – in which national
sovereignty is clearly relegated to the Museum of Outdated
Conceptions, along with the US Constitution, the Magna Carta,
and other such relics of the reactionary past.
THE
ART OF SOCIOPATHS
That
Clinton dares to bray about passing the Milosevic "test,"
in which the Yugoslavs fought the armed might of NATO and
the US to a standstill, is typical of this president's effrontery:
he can utter such phrases with a straight face without any
apparent effort. Lying, the art of sociopaths, comes naturally
to this man. But what are we to make of his throwing in Iraq
as an example of yet another "test" passed with flying colors?
This only works if he means by that a test of evil: for surely
the death of over one million Iraqis as a direct result of
the sanctions, the bombing, and the continued assault on that
smoking ruin of a country, qualifies as the apotheosis of
modern evil.
THAT
RAD-LIB TOUCH
Yes,
evil – and all the more so because this murderous
policy wears the mask of a benevolent liberalism: we didn't
invade Kosovo, we engaged in a "humanitarian intervention."
We aren't starving the children of Iraq to death – at
the rate of 5,000 per month – we're spelling out "a fair
blueprint." And just to reassure all those Birkenstockers
out there who have cheered every act of "humanitarian" militarism
from Bosnia to Kosovo to the British re-colonization of Africa
that this really isn't the Old Imperialism, both Clinton
and Blair took up the cause of Burmese dissident Aung San
Suu Kyi, the current "human rights" martyr of the month among
the sort of rad-lib "human rights activists" who cannot bear
to turn their gaze on what is happening today in Kosovo –
and would never so lionize a Serbian Orthodox priest facing
down an Albanian mob, or denounce the burning of a Christian
church outside the American south.
STORMY
WEATHER
While
Clinton and Blair grabbed most of the attention, and Putin's
remarks made a few headlines, the 146 other speakers also
had a few
things to say. As a barometer of the state of the world,
at this moment, the Millennium Summit tells us whether to
expect sunshine or stormclouds – and from what the the
representative of Saudi Arabia, His Royal Highness Prince
Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud – Crown Prince, Deputy
Prime Minister and Commander of the National Guard –
had to say, we're likely in for some pretty stormy weather.
His Royal Highness spent a good deal of his time bitterly
complaining that something must be done about Iraq:
"We
in the Arabian Gulf region . . . are still suffering from
problems resulting from the Iraqi government's lack of full
adherence to its commitments to the Security Council resolutions
that were issued following Iraq's invasion of the State of
Kuwait in 1990. This lack of adherence has caused continued
suffering for the brotherly people of Iraq as a result of
the economic blockade and the continued uncertainty of Iraq's
intentions towards its neighbors, which is reaffirmed by the
threatening language used at the highest levels of the Iraqi
leadership."
"BROTHERLY"
LOVE – UPSIDE THE HEAD
Wait
a minute here, buddy, let's get this straight: oil is over
$33 per barrel, and "we in the Arabian Gulf region... are
still suffering"? From what – a guilty conscience?
That'll be the day! The idea of conscience is as alien to
those towel-heads as the concept of metaphysics is to a rat.
We have protected their kingdom with our troops and treasure.
Now they're screwing us royally at the pump – and there
is no such protection for American consumer-taxpayers. Still
these ingrates demand that we intervene yet again to solve
their region's problems. Brotherly people of Iraq? But it
isn't very "brotherly" to serve as a staging area for a foreign
power to invade a neighboring country, now is it? Although
perhaps in Saudi Arabia this really is the meaning
of "brotherly, " in view of the internecine
warfare now being waged between King Faisal's many sons.
As the struggle for the succession and the power in Saudi
Arabia escalates, and the undercurrent of seething resentment
at the stationing of US forces on the Arabian peninsula comes
to a head, the real threat to the Saudi princes is not in
the language of Iraqi officials but in the whispered curses
of their own people.
TAKING
BIDS
In
effect, after the Clinton-Blair joint declaration of the need
for a UN standing army the rest of the conference became a
series of bids for its services. Colombian President Andres
Pastrana made mention of the drug problem as an international
"crisis" requiring intervention, and he was followed by the
presidents of Kazakhstan and Tadjikistan,
both calling on the UN to step in and, as Clinton put it,
"take sides" in a civil war. The former complained
that
"Afghanistan
has become one of the sore spots of the world. More than twenty
years after the intervention of the Soviet troops, the longsuffering
people of this country continue to experience all the horrors
of war. The instability and poverty in this country have turned
its territory into a breeding ground for extremism and international
terrorism, spreading not only in Central Asia but throughout
the world. Afghanistan produces up to three thousand tons
of raw opium annually which is then processed and shipped
to Europe and the United States.
"At
their recent meeting in Bishkek,
the leaders of Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan,
Uzbekistan
and Tajikistan
discussed this problem and called on the United Nations and
the world community to provide their countries assistance
in normalizing this situation. We believe it is necessary
to convene a special meeting of, the Security Council devoted
to the situation in Afghanistan and Central Asia to develop
practical measure to stabilize the situation."
HEY
HEY HEYDAR!
The
civil war in Tajikistan, with well-armed and well-financed
Islamic fundamentalist guerrillas employing sophisticated
weapons, is already garnering
the world's notice – and could well be the site of
the next great "humanitarian" intervention, especially if
the Republicans take the White House this November. Big Oil
has a
big interest in this region of the world, where enough
reserves to fuel the world for the next fifty or so years
are reputed to lie beneath the waters of the Caspian Sea.
The countries that ring this sea of liquid wealth are now
clamoring for some kind of Western security guarantee for
the present ruling cliques in return for franchises to Western
companies. The figure of Heydar
Aliyev, the last Stalinist dictator on earth who has now
turned into a born-again "democrat," would be comical if not
for the sinister implications of the power he and his American
corporate lobbyists wield. Here
he is like a rug trader at a bazaar, offering up his wares
to Western buyers:
"Using
its geographic location, resources and potential which has
a geo-strategic importance for the whole world, my country
has been effectively implementing the role of a bridge between
the East and West which is stemming out from a rich historical
past and aimed at future. We are making enormous efforts aimed
at restoration of the Great Silk Road, creation of the Europe-Caucasus-Asia
transport corridor, development and export of hydrocarbon
resources of the Caspian basin to the world markets. These
projects have a crucial importance for free and full-fledged
development . . ."
PROTECT
YOUR INVESTMENT – AT TAXPAYERS' EXPENSE
Blah
blah blah, but you get the picture – there's money
to be made. But the wily old Stalinist despot is not about
to be had cheaply: this opportunity for Big Oil to make a
major killing will require "peacekeepers" to protect such
an enormous investment – and why shouldn't the UN provide
them? Aliyev blames his ancient enemies, the Armenians, for
all the problems
in the region, and hints that Russian troops are actively
aiding the "aggressors":
"Armenian
armed forces have occupied twenty per cent territories of
Azerbaijan, carried out ethnic cleansing and ousted one million
Azerbaijanis from their homes. The Security Council of the
United Nations passed four resolutions with this respect,
which unequivocally confirmed sovereignty, territorial integrity
and inviolability of frontiers of the Republic of Azerbaijan,
and unconditionally demanded immediate withdrawal of Armenian
armed forces from occupied lands of Azerbaijan But since 1993
till now decisions of the Security Council are left on papers.
Since 1992 the OSCE has been engaged in the settlement of
the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. But its activities
have not been successful. Bilateral discussions between Presidents
of Azerbaijan and Armenia continue but they also have not
brought any results yet. We have had ceasefire for the last
six years but it is not a solution to problems. I call on
the United Nations to take all necessary measures to implement
the resolutions of the Security Council." HARMONIC
CONVERGENCE OF THE TWO PARTIES
Either
that, or else the region will never achieve "harmonic integration
to the world system." Translation: no "peacekeepers," no oil.
It's as simple as that. Several of George Bush's closest foreign
policy advisors, such as Paul
Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, understand this, which is
why they hold that Russia is right now the main danger to
American "interests." Big Oil's stake in Dubya is no secret.
The GOP's only difference with the Clintonian internationalists
is that they would undertake such "peacekeeping" operations
at their corporate master's request, rather than at the behest
of the UN Secretary-General. Big deal; big difference –
not.
BY
HOOK OR BY CROOK
Aliyev's
interpretation of the Armenian-Azeri dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh
is open to dispute: what about the natural right of the Armenian
majority who live in the region to self-government? (Please
follow that last link to Chad
Nagle's excellent article on the subject: it is well worth
it.) Who can blame them from wanting to get out from under
the one-party cult-of-personality surrounding the "ex"-Commie
local chieftain? When the USSR fell apart, the boundaries
drawn by Moscow started to dissolve – but Aliyev and
his oil lobbyist friends in Washington are determined to preserve
them, and to hell with the national aspirations of the Armenians.
By hook or by crook, with either Gore or Dubya in the White
House, the corporate interests who funded both parties' campaigns
and who own both "major" candidates will get those "peacekeepers"
in Central Asia to guard the Caucasian hen-house. Whether
they be UN "peacekeepers" or US troops is really a matter
of taste and convenience rather than principle, and this is
the only division on this question between the two parties.
Here is the "Third Way" in action – the costs of the
Caspian oil bonanza are socialized, but the profits are "privatized."
Whether the "spin" is that we are saving thousands of "refugees,"
who suddenly appear out of the woodwork and on CNN, or that
we are saving the "national interest" and filling up our tanks
with cheap and plentiful gas, the result is the same: war
in Central Asia. Isn't the two-party system wonderful?
SWAMP
FOX OF THE FUTURE
Western
taxpayers will bear the brunt of the wide-ranging interventions
dreamed up by the globo-crats and their civilian NGO cheerleaders
– for the next step is a UN tax, to pay the centurions
of the "Peace Force" envisioned in the latest UN Declaration.
Perhaps they'll tax fossil fuels, or the Internet – because
it's so global, you know – in the not-too-distant
future. That is the inevitable next step. No Army goes unpaid,
unless they be revolutionaries – future rebels against
an all-encompassing Global Authority. The original American
revolutionaries were tax resisters, and the next millennium
is more than likely to see yet another Swamp Fox of the revolution
fight a guerrilla war against "peacekeeping" redcoats –
wearing blue berets, this time, and with plenty of Loyalist
traitors to back them up.
COMMIES
FOR NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY
For
years, the UN and the web of treaties such as NAFTA and the
WTO have been chipping away at the concept of national sovereignty:
the UN Millennium Summit represents an escalation of the struggle
to supplant national governments with a single centralizing
World Authority. That the leaders of the West have taken up
the cause of internationalism with far more effectiveness
– and deadly force – than their Marxist predecessors
ever did should surprise no one. But what ought to be more
surprising is that it
was left to the Chinese representative, President Jiang Zemin,
the ostensible Communist, to raise the issue and hold high
the banner of national sovereignty against the emerging globalist
tyranny:
"Respect
for each other's independence and sovereignty is vital to
the maintenance of world peace. Countries would not be able
to live in amity unless they follow the five principles of
mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity,
mutual nonaggression, non-interference in each other's internal
affairs, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence
and strictly comply with the purposes and principles of the
UN Charter.
"Matters
that fall within the scope of sovereignty of a country should
be managed only by the government and people of that country,
and the world affairs should be handled by the governments
and people of all countries through consultation. . . . The
world is diverse and colorful. Just as there should not be
only one color in the universe, so there should not be only
one civilization, one social system, one development model
or one set of values in the world. Each and every country
and nation has made its own contribution to the development
of human civilization. It is essential to fully respect the
diversity of different nations, religions and civilizations,
whose coexistence is the very source of vigorous development
in the world."
THE
IRONY OF HISTORY
It
is the irony of history that insists on casting the President
of "Communist" China in the role of the last defender of national
sovereignty in the community of nations. As the Internationalists'
International moves to cement its mandate for world government,
and seeks to back up its claim with the threat of force, the
last Marxist in state power (having all but abandoned the
ideas of Marx) rises to object. Meanwhile, an American President
and his British co-conspirator are leading the charge for
"global governance" – and you thought the end of the
cold war was going to mean the
"end" of history. I think not. . . .
|
