- As with so many of history's so-called trends, America's
transformation into global policeman isn't accidental. Official admissions
of this little-known truth aren't commonplace, but they do occur. Take
journalist Michael Hirsh's stunning comments in a recent issue of Newsweek,
for example. Buried more than four pages into an otherwise typical anti-isolationism
screed entitled "Death of a Founding Myth," we find the following:
-
-
- While the isolationists tempted millions with their
siren's appeal to nativism - the internationalists were always hard at
work in quiet places making plans for a more perfect global community.
In the end the internationalists have always dominated national policy.
Even so, they haven't bragged about their globe-building for fear of reawakening
the other half of the American psyche, our berserker nativism. And so they
have always done it in the most out-of-the-way places and with little ado.
In December 1917 the Inquiry, a group of eager reformers who included a
young Walter Lippmann, secretly met in New York to draw up Wilson's Fourteen
Points. In 1941, FDR concocted the Atlantic Charter in the mists off Newfoundland.
The dense woods of New Hampshire gave birth to the Bretton Woods institutions
- the IMF and World Bank - in 1944. And a year later the United Nations
came to life at the secluded Georgetown estate of Dumbarton Oaks.... So
what emerged took us more or less by surprise. We had built a global order
without quite realizing it, bit by bit, era by era, with our usual schizoid
approach: alternating engagement and withdrawal.... Like it or not - and
clearly large numbers of Americans still don't - we Americans are now part
of an organic whole with the world that George Washington wanted to keep
distant.
-
-
- Leaving aside the snide reference to George Washington,
and Hirsh's shifty use of the term "we," what of the claim that
America has been deliberately, semi-secretly maneuvered into globalism,
that her "berserker nativism" (i.e., patriotism) has been neutralized
by stealth and subterfuge?
-
- Background to Betrayal
-
- Hirsh is absolutely correct. America's modern obsession
with internationalism, including global militarism, is hardly a grass-roots
impulse. It all started, as Hirsh observes, with Woodrow Wilson and the
war to make the world safe for democracy. Wilson himself was a left-leaning
idealist, in step with the progressives and socialists of his day with
their heady designs of making America over in their own image. But, as
is ever the case with idealists in the arena of practical politics, Wilson
was ultimately the tool of other men, men of cunning and ambition far surpassing
his own.
-
- One of Wilson's keepers was Edward Mandell House, a longtime
political operative from Texas who had learned to work the levers of power
behind the scenes. House had been born into wealth and privilege and had
no visceral need for fame. The consummate political insider, House manipulated
Wilson's internationalist idealism as a personal confidant to the president
but declined any official appointments.
-
- House was the real impetus behind the Inquiry, a semisecret
group of internationalist intellectuals including Harvard-trained journalist
and co-founder of The New Republic Walter Lippmann. Many members of the
Inquiry, including both House and Lippmann, were also involved in the negotiations
at Versailles following World War I.
-
- The Inquiry created the Fourteen Points, the famous set
of postwar policy recommendations that included as its centerpiece the
League of Nations, the predecessor of the United Nations. Despite a blizzard
of propaganda on its behalf, the League of Nations was ultimately defeated
in the U.S. Senate, an act that set back the plans of House and his associates.
But House, ever the patient pragmatist, joined with many others who had
thrown their energy into the League of Nations and formed the Council on
Foreign Relations (CFR), the American counterpart of the London-based Royal
Institute of International Affairs. The Council on Foreign Relations aspired
to nothing less than creating conditions favorable for the establishment
of a world government - although in recent decades, globalist elites have
generally avoided using that politically risky phrase.
-
- With the outbreak of World War II, internationalists
in the CFR and elsewhere had another chance to convince a reluctant American
Congress (and public) of the wisdom of a world order. Accordingly, the
United Nations was created and this time, the U.S. Senate voted overwhelmingly
in favor of the UN treaty.
-
- From the beginning, the architects of the UN recognized
that, as with all governments, only the ability to exercise force could
confer legitimacy. This meant that the UN would have to be given police
and military powers. But how? Member nations were jealous of their sovereignty
and largely ignorant of the megalomaniacal objectives of UN insiders. They
would not easily be persuaded to surrender their weapons or commit their
armed forces to UN service. As long as a country as militarily powerful
and independent as the United States wielded influence apart from the United
Nations, a true world order would be impossible.
-
- The infamous Kennedy-era State Department document Freedom
from War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament
in a Peaceful World gives a rare glimpse into the mentality of the men
who in public always carefully insist that the United Nations and kindred
international organizations are but benign "frameworks" or "forums"
for peace and cooperation. The document envisages strengthening the United
Nations militarily by a careful, step-by-step process while gradually reducing
the military might of independent nations, until "no state would have
the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace
Force." Clearly, to achieve this objective, the United States must
be weakened militarily and persuaded to commit its resources to the United
Nations.
-
- This has been precisely the outcome of more than a half-century
of UN-supervised war-making. American confidence was severely eroded by
the Korean stalemate, the original UN "police action" which included
capturing, torturing, and successfully brainwashing a surprising number
of American servicemen by a brutal Communist foe. And Vietnam was worse:
Our troops were placed deliberately in a no-win quagmire with inane rules
of engagement precluding victory. The American defeat in Vietnam - the
first in our history - devastated our national confidence, even as sundry
subversives on the home front sowed the seeds for a cultural revolution
in the '60s and '70s that blasted American moral values and cultural norms.
-
- The Persian Gulf War in 1991 marked the next major turning
point. Regarding the UN-supervised war and cease-fire that followed (UN-led
wars usually end in "cease-fires," not "peace treaties"),
President George Bush (the elder) fondly recalled:
-
- In the Gulf, we saw the United Nations playing the role
dreamed of by its founders, with the world's leading nations orchestrating
and sanctioning collective action against aggression.
-
- After such a precedent, it became a simple matter for
eager-beaver internationalists during the Bush and Clinton eras to dispatch
American troops to the likes of Somalia, Kosovo, and Bosnia to fight on
behalf of the United Nations.
-
- Fast Forward to Today
-
- Now, in the era of George W. Bush, the true objectives
of the internationalist set are more transparent than ever. An international
UN-mandated peacekeeping force is now being assembled in Afghanistan. UN
troops are stationed in much of Africa, most notably in the Congo, Eritrea,
Ethiopia, and Sierra Leone. Smaller contingents patrol the former Spanish
Sahara in Morocco and many other African states. UN forces also wage peace
in Cyprus, Korea, the Balkans, and Palestine, and token observer forces
are stationed in many other hot spots.
-
- But the most significant fact about UN operations is
that they seldom end. The UN has kept the Korean peninsula in a state of
war for almost fifty years. The UN-mandated campaign against Iraq shows
no sign of ending. And even the most credulous observer would now admit
that Clinton and his internationalist friends never intended to extricate
UN-supervised U.S. forces from Bosnia and Kosovo.
-
- But the prize for the globalists remains the United States.
Soberingly, the United Nations can now muster the military force to subdue
much of the Third World, given an adequate political pretext. And America
is being duped into subscribing to the internationalist agenda, as each
new UN military adventure strengthens the precedent for U.S. subservience
to international authority.
-
- http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/02-25-2002/vo18no04_design.htm
|