Credit Card Donation Form
Behind the Headlines
by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com
If there were ever any doubts that we are headed for a future of war, dictatorship, and endless trouble, then the "Millennium Summit" should put these permanently to rest. In a veritable orgy of grandiosity, and with maximum pomp and circumstance, the world's leaders gathered in New York City – which at that point became the epicenter of evil in the world – and proclaimed their utter indispensability. If bromides were gold, we'd all be rich as Croesus: the speeches were larded with them, chock full of words like "opportunity," "diversity," and "globalization," and all praising the UN and its arrogant top-heavy bureaucracy as the only hope for the future. If these preening blowhards are the future, then I'll take the past – the era before that dismal day, October 25, 1945, when the UN was founded at a San Francisco conference presided over by its first Secretary General, Alger Hiss, a convicted Communist spy, who wrote the UN Charter. Looking up at us from the lowest rung of Hell, how proud Hiss must be of his handiwork!
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."
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 "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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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."
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 . . ."
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."
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.
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?
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.
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."
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. . . .
Please Support Antiwar.com
A contribution of $50 or more will get you a copy of Ronald Radosh's out-of-print classic study of the Old Right conservatives, Prophets on the Right: Profiles of Conservative Critics of American Globalism. Send contributions to
Antiwar.com
520 S. Murphy Avenue, #202
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
or
Contribute Via our Secure Server
Credit Card Donation Form
or
Have an e-gold account?
Contribute to Antiwar.com via e-gold.
Our account number is 130325