A UN Militia in Your Community?
Rapid Reaction Against UN Foes
by Berit Kjos - 1999
(updated 2010)
Army study suggests new 'police force’: “A newly released Rand Corporation report proposes the federal government create a rapid deployment ‘Stabilization Police Force’ that would be tasked with ‘shaping an environment before a conflict’ and restoring order in times of war, natural disaster or national emergency.... Darrell Castle [retired Marine Corps officer and attorney]... is skeptical of the report and believes the unit could be used in the U.S. against Americans.’” January 22, 2010
“Noting the increasing role and special functions of civilian police in United Nations’ peace-keeping operations, the Security Council this morning encouraged States [nations] to make appropriate trained police available to the Organization at short notice.... The council encouraged States to provide appropriate training of civilian police for international service.” UN Press Release (#6397), July 14, 1997
“As professional volunteers develop into a cohesive UN force, they can assume responsibility for some of the riskier operations mandated by the Council but for which troop contributors have been hesitant to contribute…. Without the need to consult national authorities, the UN could cut response time significantly. . . . As the 1995 Commission on Global Governance noted, ‘It is high time that this idea - a United nations Volunteer Force - was made a reality.’”1 Towards a Rapid Reaction Capability for the UN
“Governments are understandably reluctant to commit troops rapidly for UN action, particularly in civil wars and internal conflicts….”2 Our Global Neighborhood, The Report of the Commission on Global Governance
In the near future, could the United Nations actually place its own police force in our communities to quell local conflicts? Worse yet, would it have authority to deal with the mere risk of such a conflict? Would this intrusive militia bypass U.S. authorities in order to fulfill any UN Security Council command?
The answer to all three questions is an alarming “Yes.” Consider the evidence:
1. In 1998, the Clinton administration quietly gave the UN $200,000 as seed money to establish the a UN military operation called the Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters. A UN Secretariat official who prefers to remain anonymous explained the need for such “backdoor support.” It was “because of the political sensitivity over creating an army under UN command and political authority.”3
According to George Archibald, who reported this incident in his Washington Times article, “White House backs standby U.N. army,” the UN official indicated that Canada and the Netherlands are primary backers of this UN force. That’s true, but the USA has been actively pursuing this goal together with Canada.
2. In 1995, a detailed report titled Towards A Rapid Reaction Capability for the United Nations was prepared by an International Consultative Group co-chaired by Sir Brian Urquhart of the Ford Foundation and Dr. John C. Polanyi, Nobel Laureate of the University of Toronto. This Group consisted of “experts drawn from governments, academic institutions and non-governmental organizations” and included U.S. leaders such as Dr. Jessica Mathews, Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations. Published by the Canadian government, it called for UN management of satellite surveillance, information systems, databanks, and every other technological tool for managing people. It concluded that—
“As long sovereign states retain the right to decide on the deployment of their national units, there will never be complete assurance that a UN force can meet an urgent situation on time . . . .”4
“Command, Control, Communications, Computer and Intelligence systems (C41) would incorporate the full range of strategic and tactical communications networks, together with data processing capabilities and real-time information transfer….
“… A number of UN Member States are bound to be wary of systems and equipment designed for advance surveillance, intrusion detection, early warning and enhanced analytical capabilities, even if similar systems are already part of the national inventories of neighbors or adversaries. Some of these systems… might be considered too “intrusive” for use by an inter-governmental organizations. Even if these political hurdles can be overcome, acquisitions of these capabilities face enormous financial obstacles . . . .
“A prudent, long-terms approach… would focus initially on the acquisition of advanced communication/information management systems for UN headquarters and the field. These would be “secure” systems which could readily be linked electronically to a variety of national systems provided to the UN under memoranda of understanding. The UN could then build upon this base…. “5
3. What if this plan conflicts with U.S. laws, American values, and our national sovereignty? It doesn’t matter, according to Sir Brian Urquhart and Erstine Childers. Political obstacles may slow, but not block, the move toward an international police force under UN Command. Their 1993 statement was quoted in the above report, Towards A Rapid Reaction Capability for the United Nations:
“The fact that the theoretically best solution is not at present politically feasible does not mean that the system must simply muddle on indefinitely in its present condition. A great deal can be achieved without constitutional change, by changes in such salient features as geography, legal mandates and behavior.”6
Does that statement sound familiar? A mere Constitutional objection cannot stop these visionaries. Nor can national laws or public opinion. After all, laws can be reinterpreted and public opinion manipulated. As long as the mainstream media can win either the consent or the silence of the masses, Clinton and his team of change agents can continue to write life-changing rules and regulations that bypass Congress.
It’s happening in education, health, environmental programs, and every other area of life. The global management system Al Gore points to in his 1992 book, Earth in the Balance, refers primarily to sustainable development, 7 but the transformation he envisions involves every part of the all-inclusive global system. As you read the following statement, don’t forget that “voluntary” has become a buzzword for a system with built-in controls that reward compliance and shows zero tolerance for non-compliance. To these social engineers, their ends justifies any deceptive means:
“Adopting a central organizing principle – one agreed to voluntarily – means embarking on an all-out effort to use every policy and program, every law and institution, every treaty and alliance, every tactic and strategy, every plan and course of action – to use, in short, every means to halt the destruction of the environment.... Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change—these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary.”8
4. Behind UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan stands the powerful Canadian multi-billionaire Maurice Strong. The founder of both the World Economic Council and Planetary Citizens, he has served as director of the World Future Society, trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation and Aspen Institute, and a member of the Club of Rome. As head of the Earth Council, he began to prepare an Earth Charter—a global code of conduct based on global values and radical environmental guidelines. [He was discredited after accepting a million dollars from Saddam Hussein during the UN “Food for Oil” travesty.]
Strong led the 1992 “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development). It produced the controversial Biodiversity Treaty and Agenda 21 — the monstrous plan for reorganizing the world along environmental guidelines. One of his offices is only two blocks away from the White House.
Officially, Strong was “hired” by Annan to “reform” the massive, inefficient, and corrupt UN bureaucracy so that the US Congress would pay its dues. But his leadership brings little comfort to those who remember Strong’s occult and environmental ties, globalist ambitions, and corrupt business practices.
His true plan for UN reform is documented in Our Global Neighborhood, the report of the UN Commission on Global Governance, which Strong helped write. Like Towards a Rapid Reaction Capability for the United Nations, this report calls for a volunteer UN army under UN command, with UN police stationed in every region of the world:
“In many of today’s crises, it is clear than an early intervention could have prevented later negative developments…. This underlines the need for a highly trained UN Volunteer Force that is willing, if necessary, to take combat risks….This would be particularly useful in low-level but dangerous conflicts. Such an international Volunteer Force would be under the exclusive authority of the Security Council.” 9
What if the U.S. Congress disagrees with UN decisions. Could it simply press for a U.S. veto on the Security Council? Not if Strong implements his vision of reform. The United States, which is billed 25% of the huge UN budget, would be dismissed from the Security Council:
“We recommend that a new class of ‘standing‘ members be established…. Of these new members, two should be drawn from industrial countries and three from among the larger developing countries. Of the two from industrial countries, presumably one will be from Asia and one from Europe. Of the three from developing countries, we would expect one each to be drawn from Asia, Africa, and Latin America. . . . The new standing members will not possess a veto, and we believe the aim should be for the power of the veto to be phased out. 10
5. Most of the incremental steps toward UN control over its own local police happen in secret, behind closed doors. But some are made public, such as the following UN Press Release (#6397) issued on July 14, 1997:
“Noting the increasing role and special functions of civilian police in United Nations’ peace-keeping operations, the Security Council this morning encouraged States [nations] to make appropriate trained police available to the Organization at short notice. . . . The council encouraged States to provide appropriate training of civilian police for international service…. [C]ivilian police performed indispensable functions in monitoring and training national police forces. They could play a major role, through assistance to local police forces, in restoring civil order, supporting the rule of law, and fostering civil reconciliation.”
6. On September 14, 1998, U.S. Secretary of Defense William Cohen addressed the Council on Foreign Relations. In the euphemistically veiled language so typical of the Clinton administration, he described the current crisis and offered a government solution:
“To deal effectively with these challenges, we must have a national security policy based on four pillars:
Ø Bi-partisan support for Defense Policy
Ø Budgets adequate to maintain the world’s best military today and in the future
Ø International cooperation
Ø Interagency cooperation within our government”
Keep in mind that “international cooperation” means working with NATO and the UN. Three of the four points above were covered in the report mentioned earlier, Towards A Rapid Reaction Capability for the United Nations. The list of excerpts at the end of this report broadens our view of the vast bureaucracies, monstrous power, and arrogant ambitions that drive the UN agenda and its worldwide network of disciples every closer to Maurice Strong’s vision of “global governance”. To speed the process, the United States is expected to contribute troops as well as its enviable expertise in surveillance and reconnaissance technology. American taxes would fund and arm a global management system that aims to crush Christianity, Western culture, capitalism, and the US Constitution.
7. Controlling the flow of information is vital to the envisioned global management system. To this end, each nation must fund and implement its part of the massive global information and monitoring system. In the following section of Towards A Rapid Reaction Capability for the United Nations, notice the reference to Information Management.
“The types of technologies which could play a greater role in peacekeeping operations are: surveillance technologies, communications equipment and enhanced information management systems….
“An attractive technology for a variety of peace operations is aerial reconnaissance of ground activity. Access to satellite capability… may have great strategic potential.
“The ability to locate, identify and monitor virtually all vehicular movement… has obvious applicability to monitoring, surveillance and control missions.
“….surveillance technologies and information management systems could be integrated into an organization-wide system to enhance contingency planning….” (pages 56-57)
Such an integrated UN-U.S. information management system is needed for other global programs as well. At the 1995 UN Conference for Women in Beijing, 11 our U.S. delegation committed our nation to participate in an international monitoring system controlled by the UN Economic and Social Council. This system would monitor compliance with politically correct gender roles in schools, workplaces, and homes (parents could no longer model traditional gender roles in the home). Fulfilling his part of the UN plan, President Clinton signed Executive Order 13011, establishing a massive interagency bureaucracy with power to -
Ø manage “Federal Information Technology”
Ø disseminate politically correct information
Ø build massive data banks
Ø share the data with international bodies such as the United Nations.
8. A crisis need not erupt before the UN militia begins its work. In fact, one of its major responsibilities would be to monitor human rights violations around the world. If that doesn’t concern you, please read our reports on Executive Order 13107: Human Rights Implementation and The UN Plan for Your Mental Health.
The 1998 International IDNDR Conference on Early Warning Systems for the Reduction of Natural Disasters chose as its theme, “Building a Culture of Prevention.” For our globalist leaders who promote “systems thinking,” the theme of prevention includes all conceivable areas of potential conflict and non-compliance. What’s more, this theme provides a catchy rationale for continual and pervasive surveillance of beliefs, attitudes, and actions. In light of the UN’s overall quest for global “peace” and “solidarity,” ponder the following quote from The Declaration of the Potsdam Early Warning Conference:
“Successful early warning requires unrestricted access to data that is freely available for exchange. Ultimately, all resulting information must be credible, and emanate from a single officially designated authority.
“Participants emphasized that early warning is effective only to the extent that policy makers at national levels of authority have the will, and make a sustained commitment of resources that will establish protective measures. It is crucial that these measures support the development of early warning capabilities at the community level and that they be based on local vulnerability and risk assessments.” 12
In other words, the U.S. must provide the UN with all the data needed to assess potential conflict of any sort anywhere. Among the conflicts the UN police are being trained to resolve are human rights violations. In the eyes of UN leaders, any group that violates the UN standard for politically correct beliefs and values could be “at risk” of creating conflict.13 Would non-compliant people be among the risk factors that could trigger the “early warning systems”?
9. Finally, see how the pieces fit together. Ponder the following quotes from Towards A Rapid Reaction Capability for the United Nations:
“… This study’s central objective is to recommend changes at all levels of the UN system which would give the UN an enhanced capability to respond rapidly to crisis situations.” (p. iv)
“…there are several generic components of rapid reaction which must be included in an UN capability if it is to be effective:
Ø an early warning mechanism to alert the system to an impending conflict or crisis;
Ø an effective decision-making process…
Ø adequate finance….
Ø well-trained personnel.” (p. iv)
“Current early-warning systems could be substantially strengthened by working towards an element of ‘automaticity’ in early-warning arrangements. Ideally, as Jessica Tuchman Mathews, of the Council of Foreign Relations, New York has suggested, “The UN should develop an automatic system of responses . . . . The key is that a certain set of findings would trigger a set of predetermined responses for rapid reaction.. . . .
“Nothing can tie the hands of the Security Council in making decisions.” (p.44)
“To enhance rapid reaction, the UN and Member States need to address the nature of training to be conducted and the management systems which should be put into place to ensure that national training programs are responsive to the UN’s requirements.” (p. 54)
“The UN … would not have to await the lengthy domestic processes of each Member State before a critical mass of police forces is assembled.... a permanent force could be trained to the high standards which the UN should demand. . . .
“The Vanguard Concept … is based on standby arrangements for nationally-based units linked to a UN operational headquarters. … The presence of regional headquarters would provide for greater flexibility and reduce the time required for deployment. . . . Governments are sometimes reluctant to release their forces for duty…. Even when Governments are disposed to concur… the process of seeking authorization is often slow…. (p. 60)
“As they would remain under national command, national authorities would retain primary responsibility for their administration, pay and benefits.” (p. 61)
The United Nations may well position its “highly trained” Volunteer Force armed with America’s latest surveillance and reconnaissance technology in our midst. Such an action would fit the vision of many US leaders who, for political reasons, prefer to let the UN make such unpolular choices for them. If this happens, and if this Force must carry out Security Council orders that our Congress would forbid, there will be no earthly place to hide from tyrannical leaders.
While we must do all we can to stop this intrusion upon American sovereignty and freedom, we need to remember that the forces arrayed against us are far greater than our mere human efforts. Only God can bring victory. I suggest that we turn to Him, listen to His instructions, and follow His plan. Jehoshophat, a godly king in Old Testament days, said it well:
“O our God, will You not judge them? For we have no power against this great multitude that is coming against us; nor do we know what to do, but our eyes are upon You.” (2 Chronicles 20:12)
Together, the people prayed, followed God’s instructions, and won the war in a mighty demonstration of the power and faithfulness of our God.
Endnotes:
1.Towards a Rapid Reaction Capability for the UN (The Government of Canada, 1992), p. 62.
2. Our Global Neighborhood, The Commission on Global Governance (Oxford University Press, 1995), 110-111.
3. George Archibald, “White House backs standby UN army,” Washington Times, April 23, 1998.
4. Towards a Rapid Reaction Capability for the UN , page 63.
5. Ibid., page 56-57.
6. Ibid., page 55.
7. See Local Agenda 21.
8. Al Gore, Earth in the Balance; Ecology and the Human Spirit (Houghton Mifflin, 1992), p. 274.
9. Our Global Neighborhood, The Commission on Global Governance (Oxford University Press, 1995), 110-111.
10. Ibid., 240, 241.
11. You can read about this UN conference, and the global sisterhood that led it, in chapter 9 of A Twist of Faith.
Gill Rapoza
Veritas Vos Liberabit
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment