Tracing NATO's UN Roots
John McManus | The New American
January 8, 1996
As the Vietnam War dragged on in 1967, with daily increases in American soldiers killed, wounded, and missing, John Birch Society founder Robert Welch was prompted to point out the shadowy relationship that then existed between the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), under which our American men were fighting in Vietnam, and its parent organization, the United Nations. In a pamphlet entitled The Truth About Vietnam, Mr. Welch asked:
At the time, President Lyndon Johnson and various of his Administration spokesmen admitted that our forces were in Vietnam by virtue of our membership in SEATO. On January 10, 1967, for example, President Johnson declared, "We are in Vietnam because the United States and our allies are committed by the SEATO treaty to 'act to meet the common danger' of aggression in Southeast Asia." Several weeks earlier, on November 26, 1966, Secretary of State Dean Rusk offered: "It is this fundamental SEATO obligation that has from the outset guided our action in South Vietnam."
By What Authority?
But under what authority was SEATO created in 1954 by its eight member nations: the United States, Britain, France, New Zealand, Australia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Pakistan? The SEATO treaty itself identifies the United Nations as sole authority: "The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations ... to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations."
State Department Bulletin 8062 of March 28, 1966 confirmed SEATO's roots: "The Southeast Asia Treaty Organization was designed as a collective arrangement under Article 51 of the UN Charter." The same bulletin proclaimed: "The United States has reported to the Security Council on measures it has taken in countering the Communist aggression in Vietnam."
While Robert Welch and a handful of other perceptive observers realized that the UN -- through SEATO -- was in control of what happened in Vietnam, most Americans remained in the dark. Even U.S. leaders who found themselves facing criticism from two sides -- from those who wanted the U.S. out of the war and from others who wanted the U.S. to end it by winning -- kept the American people uninformed about UN domination of the action.
A New Offspring
As President Clinton now sends our troops into the middle of the bloody Bosnian conflict, he wants the American people to believe that our soldiers are solely under the command of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Realizing the hatred most Americans have toward the Godless enemy of our sovereignty, the United Nations, he has made no reference to the behind-the-scenes direction being supplied by the world body. But like SEATO before it, NATO was created as a "collective defense organization" under Article 51 of the UN Charter. At its formation in 1949, it was made up of the U.S., Canada, and ten Western European nations. (It has since added four more European nations.)
The NATO treaty itself repeatedly confirms NATO's dependence upon the United Nations. The preamble states, "The Parties to the Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations...." Article 1 of the treaty states: "The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations ... to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations." Article 5 acknowledges the right to collective self-defense which is "recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations." Article 7 states that membership in NATO does not affect "the rights and obligations under the Charter of the Parties which are members of the United Nations." And Article 12 requires that before any changes might be made in the treaty, NATO's participants pledge not to countermand the "development of universal as well as regional arrangements under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace and security."
Because its UN connection has been kept conveniently in the background, NATO is not viewed by the American people in the same negative light as its parent organization. So in his November 27th speech to the nation, President Clinton kept his focus on NATO's command of U.S. troops in Bosnia, and only referred to the UN to explain that its mission in Bosnia had failed because its forces did not "have the authority to respond immediately ... with overwhelming force to any threat to their own safety or any violations of the military provisions of the peace agreement."
Alarming Evidence
Mr. Clinton would have the American people believe that NATO, possessed of the "overwhelming force" of the United States military, will now enforce peace. What he hasn't explained is that peace isn't the real goal; submergence of the U.S. military -- and the nation itself -- into world government is the ultimate goal.
In fact, there is evidence to suggest that our nation's military is already under the effective control of the United Nations, directly or through its NATO offspring. Consider:
Who's In Charge?
Mr. Clinton has assured Americans that "American troops will take their orders from the American general who commands NATO." But it is perfectly clear that this American general takes his orders, not from the U.S. Commander in Chief, but from NATO's North Atlantic Council. And the UN is continuing "to exercise its mandate" over the operation pending the upcoming formal Security Council authorization.
Mr. Clinton is playing a sinister game with U.S. troops and with the nation. Despite his deceptive rhetoric, the deployment to Bosnia is UN-authorized, UN-controlled, and UN-dominated. There will be no blue helmets worn by the American military personnel serving in the former Yugoslavia. There are no foreign commanders being placed between the troops in the field and their immediate superiors. There may not even be any casualties, although given the current violent situation in Bosnia, that appears unlikely. Regardless, the United Nations is ultimately in charge.
A Moral Imperative
It cannot be stated too emphatically: There is no authorization in the U.S. Constitution -- sworn to by Mr. Clinton, by every member of Congress, and by every member of the U.S. military -- for this mission.
President Clinton has referred to the deployment of our troops to Bosnia as a "moral" imperative. He is dead wrong about that. His moral imperative is to uphold his oath to the U.S. Constitution.
Righting the immense wrongs into which our nation is being dragged can be accomplished only by withdrawing the U.S. from both the United Nations and NATO. Time is running out for the American people to preserve their nation's independence. The steady plunge into world government must be ended.
John McManus | The New American
January 8, 1996
As the Vietnam War dragged on in 1967, with daily increases in American soldiers killed, wounded, and missing, John Birch Society founder Robert Welch was prompted to point out the shadowy relationship that then existed between the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), under which our American men were fighting in Vietnam, and its parent organization, the United Nations. In a pamphlet entitled The Truth About Vietnam, Mr. Welch asked:
Is this war being run by the United Nations, or isn't it? Is it being run by SEATO, and if so, is that the same as being run by the United Nations? Of course, we know that the answer to both of these questions is yes .... And SEATO, like NATO, by the very treaties which established it, is a regional subsidiary of the United Nations.
At the time, President Lyndon Johnson and various of his Administration spokesmen admitted that our forces were in Vietnam by virtue of our membership in SEATO. On January 10, 1967, for example, President Johnson declared, "We are in Vietnam because the United States and our allies are committed by the SEATO treaty to 'act to meet the common danger' of aggression in Southeast Asia." Several weeks earlier, on November 26, 1966, Secretary of State Dean Rusk offered: "It is this fundamental SEATO obligation that has from the outset guided our action in South Vietnam."
By What Authority?
But under what authority was SEATO created in 1954 by its eight member nations: the United States, Britain, France, New Zealand, Australia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Pakistan? The SEATO treaty itself identifies the United Nations as sole authority: "The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations ... to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations."
State Department Bulletin 8062 of March 28, 1966 confirmed SEATO's roots: "The Southeast Asia Treaty Organization was designed as a collective arrangement under Article 51 of the UN Charter." The same bulletin proclaimed: "The United States has reported to the Security Council on measures it has taken in countering the Communist aggression in Vietnam."
While Robert Welch and a handful of other perceptive observers realized that the UN -- through SEATO -- was in control of what happened in Vietnam, most Americans remained in the dark. Even U.S. leaders who found themselves facing criticism from two sides -- from those who wanted the U.S. out of the war and from others who wanted the U.S. to end it by winning -- kept the American people uninformed about UN domination of the action.
A New Offspring
As President Clinton now sends our troops into the middle of the bloody Bosnian conflict, he wants the American people to believe that our soldiers are solely under the command of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Realizing the hatred most Americans have toward the Godless enemy of our sovereignty, the United Nations, he has made no reference to the behind-the-scenes direction being supplied by the world body. But like SEATO before it, NATO was created as a "collective defense organization" under Article 51 of the UN Charter. At its formation in 1949, it was made up of the U.S., Canada, and ten Western European nations. (It has since added four more European nations.)
The NATO treaty itself repeatedly confirms NATO's dependence upon the United Nations. The preamble states, "The Parties to the Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations...." Article 1 of the treaty states: "The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations ... to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations." Article 5 acknowledges the right to collective self-defense which is "recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations." Article 7 states that membership in NATO does not affect "the rights and obligations under the Charter of the Parties which are members of the United Nations." And Article 12 requires that before any changes might be made in the treaty, NATO's participants pledge not to countermand the "development of universal as well as regional arrangements under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace and security."
Because its UN connection has been kept conveniently in the background, NATO is not viewed by the American people in the same negative light as its parent organization. So in his November 27th speech to the nation, President Clinton kept his focus on NATO's command of U.S. troops in Bosnia, and only referred to the UN to explain that its mission in Bosnia had failed because its forces did not "have the authority to respond immediately ... with overwhelming force to any threat to their own safety or any violations of the military provisions of the peace agreement."
Alarming Evidence
Mr. Clinton would have the American people believe that NATO, possessed of the "overwhelming force" of the United States military, will now enforce peace. What he hasn't explained is that peace isn't the real goal; submergence of the U.S. military -- and the nation itself -- into world government is the ultimate goal.
In fact, there is evidence to suggest that our nation's military is already under the effective control of the United Nations, directly or through its NATO offspring. Consider:
• Every member of the U.S. military who has served in South Korea since 1950 has served under United Nations command. Yes, U.S. officers serve at the top of each unit, but they are themselves assigned to UN command. When U.S. serviceman David Hilemon was killed in late 1994 by North Koreans who shot down his helicopter after it strayed across the border, his body was returned in a casket covered by a UN flag.
• U.S. Army units based in Germany have for the past two years been sent on a rotating basis to UN duty in Macedonia. Once deployed, these Army personnel -- usually a battalion numbering approximately 500 personnel -- have been required to wear UN patches and UN helmets and caps. The unit in Bosnia at present is commanded by a UN officer from Finland. It is this duty that Army Specialist Michael New refused to be a part of and, for his stand, is now facing court-martial.
• When 15 Americans perished on April 14, 1994 as a result of friendly fire while carrying out a patrol mission over Iraq, Vice President Al Gore extended official "condolences to the families of those who died in the service of the United Nations."
• In a column published in the November 30th Washington Times, former German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher noted: "NATO's decision to send forces to Bosnia based on a U.N. Security Council decision is to be applauded."
• On December 1st, the Associated Press reported that U.S. Army General George Joulwan, the supreme NATO commander, was in Brussels at NATO headquarters "seeking authority to begin moving the first soldiers into place" in Bosnia. The AP dispatch reported, "That authorization has to be given by the North Atlantic Council," which it described as "the alliance's top policy-making body." Mr. Clinton would have the American people believe that our forces are following his leadership. For the record, the North Atlantic Council is made up of individuals from the various NATO nations.
• The Bosnian "peace" agreement reached in Dayton notes: "The Parties understand and agree that the IFOR [NATO force] will begin the implementation of the military aspects of this Annex upon the transfer of authority from the UNPROFOR [UN Protective Force] Commander to the IFOR Commander ... and that until the Transfer of Authority, UNPROFOR will continue to exercise its mandate."
• The Dayton agreement also states that "the United Nations Security Council is invited to authorize Member States or regional organizations and arrangements to establish the IFOR acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter."
• U.S. Army units based in Germany have for the past two years been sent on a rotating basis to UN duty in Macedonia. Once deployed, these Army personnel -- usually a battalion numbering approximately 500 personnel -- have been required to wear UN patches and UN helmets and caps. The unit in Bosnia at present is commanded by a UN officer from Finland. It is this duty that Army Specialist Michael New refused to be a part of and, for his stand, is now facing court-martial.
• When 15 Americans perished on April 14, 1994 as a result of friendly fire while carrying out a patrol mission over Iraq, Vice President Al Gore extended official "condolences to the families of those who died in the service of the United Nations."
• In a column published in the November 30th Washington Times, former German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher noted: "NATO's decision to send forces to Bosnia based on a U.N. Security Council decision is to be applauded."
• On December 1st, the Associated Press reported that U.S. Army General George Joulwan, the supreme NATO commander, was in Brussels at NATO headquarters "seeking authority to begin moving the first soldiers into place" in Bosnia. The AP dispatch reported, "That authorization has to be given by the North Atlantic Council," which it described as "the alliance's top policy-making body." Mr. Clinton would have the American people believe that our forces are following his leadership. For the record, the North Atlantic Council is made up of individuals from the various NATO nations.
• The Bosnian "peace" agreement reached in Dayton notes: "The Parties understand and agree that the IFOR [NATO force] will begin the implementation of the military aspects of this Annex upon the transfer of authority from the UNPROFOR [UN Protective Force] Commander to the IFOR Commander ... and that until the Transfer of Authority, UNPROFOR will continue to exercise its mandate."
• The Dayton agreement also states that "the United Nations Security Council is invited to authorize Member States or regional organizations and arrangements to establish the IFOR acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter."
Who's In Charge?
Mr. Clinton has assured Americans that "American troops will take their orders from the American general who commands NATO." But it is perfectly clear that this American general takes his orders, not from the U.S. Commander in Chief, but from NATO's North Atlantic Council. And the UN is continuing "to exercise its mandate" over the operation pending the upcoming formal Security Council authorization.
Mr. Clinton is playing a sinister game with U.S. troops and with the nation. Despite his deceptive rhetoric, the deployment to Bosnia is UN-authorized, UN-controlled, and UN-dominated. There will be no blue helmets worn by the American military personnel serving in the former Yugoslavia. There are no foreign commanders being placed between the troops in the field and their immediate superiors. There may not even be any casualties, although given the current violent situation in Bosnia, that appears unlikely. Regardless, the United Nations is ultimately in charge.
A Moral Imperative
It cannot be stated too emphatically: There is no authorization in the U.S. Constitution -- sworn to by Mr. Clinton, by every member of Congress, and by every member of the U.S. military -- for this mission.
President Clinton has referred to the deployment of our troops to Bosnia as a "moral" imperative. He is dead wrong about that. His moral imperative is to uphold his oath to the U.S. Constitution.
Righting the immense wrongs into which our nation is being dragged can be accomplished only by withdrawing the U.S. from both the United Nations and NATO. Time is running out for the American people to preserve their nation's independence. The steady plunge into world government must be ended.
