The scope of this Protocol is twofold :
- to harmonise substantive criminal law in the fight against racism and xenophobia on the Internet,
- to improve international co-operation in this area, while respecting the right to freedom of expression enshrined, more than 50 years ago, in the European Convention on Human Rights.

All the offences recognised by the Protocol must be committed "intentionally" for criminal liability to apply.  For example, under this provision a service-provider will not be held criminally liable for having served as a conduit for, or having hosted, a website or newsroom containing such material, unless the intentional nature of the dissemination of racist and xenophobic material can be established under domestic law in each given case.

Global threats and challenges needing global responses, the negotiation process of this Protocol, as for the Convention on Cybercime, also involved Council of Europe non-member States: the USA, Canada, Japan, Mexico and South Africa - the Protocol is also open to signature by them.

The Committee of Ministers decided to open the Additional Protocol for signature on the occasion of the next Parliamentary Assembly session (27-31 January
2003).

Further information on the Council of Europe's fight against cybercrime can be found in our special file.

Press Contact Council of Europe Spokesperson and Press Division Tel.  +33 3 88 41 25 60 - Fax.  +33 3 88 41 39 11 E-mail: PressUnit@coe.int

Refugees meeting hears proposal to register every human in GENEVA, Dec 13 AAP|Published: Friday December 14, 7:18 AM

Every person in the world would be fingerprinted and registered under a universal identification scheme to fight illegal immigration and people smuggling outlined at a United Nations meeting today.

The plan was put forward by Pascal Smet, the head of Belgium's independent asylum review board, at a roundtable meeting with ministers including Australian Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock this afternoon.

Mr Smet said the European Union was already considering a Europe-wide system, using either fingerprints or eye scanning technology, to identify citizens.
 

But he said the plan could be extended worldwide.

"There are no technical problems.  It is only a question of will and investment," he said.

"If you look to our societies, we are already registered from birth until death.  Our governments know who we are and what we are.  But one of the basic problems is the numbers of people in the world who are not registered, who do not have a set identity, and when these people move with real or fake passports, you cannot identify them.

"It's a basic rule of management that if you want to manage something, you measure it.  It's the same with human beings and migration.

"But instead of measuring it, you have to register them."

Mr Smet said the scheme would give people dignity by giving them an identity if their papers had been lost or destroyed.

And he said it would allow countries to open their borders to genuine travellers or asylum seekers, because they would be able to prove the identity of any over-stayers and deport them without argument from their home country.

Mr Ruddock appeared unconvinced by the merits of the plan.

"In principle we would be supportive of a system which would crack down on multiple asylum claims, but a universal identification system would be taking it too far," he said through a spokeswoman.

By Maria Hawthorne

No Welcome For the World In Utah Towns Tuesday, June 26, 2001 BY THOMAS BURR (c) 2001, THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE

Most city councils have enough to do keeping the streets clean and safe.  Not La Verkin and Virgin.  The rural southern Utah towns have taken on the United Nations.

The international organization has not exactly overrun them, but the two town councils are considering ordinances that would erase all traces of the United Nations in their communities, citing concerns the body is usurping the sovereignty of the United States.

"We've been pushed far enough, and long enough," La Verkin Mayor Dan Howard said Monday.  "We're tired of marching to [the U.N.] agenda.  Maybe now we can start to march on our own agenda.  Maybe La Verkin is the crucible to get the rest of the cities and the national government to listen."
Prompting the anti-U.N.  ordinance was the case of Michael New, an Army medic from Texas who was court-martialed in 1996 for refusing to wear a U.N.  beret and insignia for peacekeeping duty in Macedonia.  New's father, Daniel New, met with both town councils last week to discuss the proposed ordinance.

The proposed ordinance creates a "United Nations-free zone" that would ban aiding the organization with town funds, displaying any U.N.  symbols on town property and prohibit the "involuntary servitude" of any resident in U.N.  peacekeeping activities.

Those who support the organization would be required to post signs that say, "United Nations work conducted here."

This is not the first time the towns, about 25 miles northeast of St.  George, have courted controversy.  A year ago, the Virgin Town Council passed a law requiring all households to own a gun.  Last week, La Verkin passed a resolution supporting the Second Amendment right to bear arms.  The towns have also passed legislation supporting free use of public lands and opposing federal control.

U.N.  spokesman Farhan Haq said Monday that while his office often receives criticism, this is the first time he has heard of a U.N.-free zone.  However, the organization had no comment on the issue.
"The U.N.  doesn't involve itself in the internal affairs of its member states," Haq said.
Likewise, U.S.  State Department spokeswoman Susan Pittman said this was also a first for her but said the Utah towns are perfectly free to criticize the U.N.

La Verkin Mayor Howard acknowledged the move was largely symbolic.  But that will not stop La Verkin from making a big splash out of it.  The City Council has scheduled a special Fourth of July meeting in which it is expected to adopt the ordinance, making it the first such city in the nation to do so, according to Howard.

Meanwhile, Virgin officials are proceeding more cautiously.
Virgin Mayor Jay Lee calls the ordinance "real interesting," but is unsure his council will pass it at its next meeting July 19.

At least one council member opposes the U.N.  measure.  "It's just another radical thing that we don't need," Ken Cornelius said.

La Verkin Councilman Al Snow, who helped draft the ordinance, says the city is only trying to shape the debate about the United Nations and make a statement to the federal government: The United Nations should not control U.S.  foreign policy.

Said Snow: "The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and not some [U.N.] treaty that tries to supersede it."

tburr@sltrib.com

"A Canadian-led commission on Thursday launched an effort to help the U.N.  decide whether to step in when a country faces a crisis within its borders, even if the intervention is unwanted.  The independent commission will produce guidelines for U.N.  action to stop tragedies in the making, while heeding the objections of such countries as Russia and China, which believe that internal conflicts are not international affairs.  But the task of defining the line between human rights and sovereign rights has become contentious…Secretary-General Kofi Annan is haunted by a series of humanitarian disasters that the U.N.  had neither the force nor will to prevent: Opposition from the United States and doubts about the severity of ethnic fighting delayed the deployment of U.N.
peacekeepers to Rwanda, where more than 800,000 people were massacred in 1994.  Outnumbered and unarmed peacekeepers in Bosnia-Herzegovina failed to stop the killing of Muslims when Serbs overran the U.N.  ‘safe area’ of Srebrenica in l995.  In the hopes that he would never again have to say ‘never again,’ Annan declared last year that the world's duty to stop genocide should override the legal notion of sovereignty.  ‘If humanitarian intervention is indeed an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond...to gross and systematic violations of human rights that offend every precept of our common humanity?’ Annan wrote in his Millennium Report this year..."

Platform holds U.N.  at arm's length Republicans plot new course for relationship with world body By Mary Jo Anderson © 2000 WorldNetDaily.com PHILADELPHIA -- Stating boldly that the United Nations can exercise "no veto over principled American leadership" and that "American troops must never serve under United Nations command," the GOP platform unveiled in Philadelphia this week describes a very different view of the relationship between the United States and the United Nations than that of the Clinton-Gore administration.

While acknowledging that the United Nations can organize humanitarian aid efforts and serve as a "forum for nations to peacefully resolve their differences," the Republican platform stipulates that the U.N.  was "not designed to summon or lead armies."

Other specific issues addressed by the platform include the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, U.S.  dues payments to the U.N., environmental treaties and U.S.  funding of international programs providing abortion as part of health care.

Sen.  Jesse Helms, R-N.C., an outspoken critic of the International Criminal Court, and Sen.
Ashcroft, R-Mo., have raised concerns about the incompatibility of the ICC's jurisdiction and the constitutional rights of Americans, particularly military personnel.  The statute for the creation of the International Criminal Court was established July 17,1998, in Rome to form a permanent world tribunal to try individuals for international crimes.

The ICC becomes operative once 60 nations have ratified the treaty.  And more than a hundred nations have already signed the treaty in anticipation of having their national governments begin the ratification process that incorporates ICC provisions into domestic law.

Though international pressure for the U.S.  to agree to the Court is intensifying - several allies have recently ratified the treaty, including Canada, which did so in July -- the U.S.  has neither signed nor ratified the treaty.

Helms, who views the treaty as a danger to U.S.
sovereignty and promised the treaty would be "dead on arrival" unless the United States held veto power, introduced the American Service Member Protection Act to the Senate last week, a measure designed to preempt international efforts to try U.S.  soldiers.  In June, Helms introduced legislation that prohibits U.S.
cooperation with the Court and forbids ICC investigations in any territory under the jurisdiction of the United States.

According to John L.Washburn, co-chairman of the Washington Working Group on the International Criminal Court, the Republican platform provision on the ICC is "based on a misconception."

A coalition of 15 non-governmental organizations, the Washington Working Group is an educational and advocacy body whose efforts are aimed at U.S.  congressmen.
Washburn, a graduate of Harvard Law School, has served in the United States Foreign Service and in the office of the Secretary General of the United Nations under Javier Perez de Cuellar.
He points out that the assumption "implicit in the GOP platform is that the ICC would have jurisdiction over the U.S.  government or military personnel as a group." Another misconception, he said, is that nations that are not a party to the treaty would fall under the venue of the ICC.  Instead, he said, the ICC incorporates the Nuremberg Principle that prosecutes individuals.

"At issue is not the nationality," he said, "but the person's individual responsibility for the very worst of international crimes."

Others, however, disagree, claiming non-party nations would not be beyond the reach of the ICC.

Kenneth Gallant, professor of Law at the University of Arkansas School of Law, explains, "If a non-signatory nation refuses to cooperate, a case can be brought to the Court by the U.N. Security Council under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter.  By virtue of their membership in the U.N.  -- and nearly every nation is a member -- states and their citizens are subject to a case brought to the ICC by the Security Council."

The U.S.  veto power on the Security Council is also considered an insufficient safeguard in light of current discussions about ending the veto power altogether.

Although most Americans believe International Criminal Court prosecutions will be reserved for war crimes, an official U.N.  information brochure says otherwise: "A decision has yet to be made as to whether the definition of crimes against humanity contained in the Statute will also include such acts when committed in peacetime.  In this regard, the Yugoslavia Tribunal stated, 'It is by now a settled rule of customary international law that crimes against humanity do not require a connection to international armed conflict.' "

Those concerned with American sovereignty issues point to a concern for how terms are defined.  The crimes under the International Criminal Court's domain include genocide and "crimes against humanity," "aggression," "sexual slavery" and "enforced pregnancy." The ICC treaty, which will have the power to enforce U.N.-mandated social policies worldwide, was greeted by United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan as "a giant step forward in the march towards universal human rights and the rule of law."

But Richard G.  Wilkins, professor of law at Brigham Young University, warns that "malleable definitions" and disagreements about what constitutes "human rights" are areas of significant dispute.

The GOP platform acknowledges some of those areas in its pledge to "protect the rights of families in international programs and [we] will not fund organizations involved in abortions."
Pamela Shifman serves as co-executive director of the New York-based Equality Now, an advocacy group that "supports the United Nations international human rights efforts for women, such as the Beijing [conference] and Beijing+5 process."

Shifman's organization, an NGO at the United Nations, is "strongly supportive of the establishment of an International Criminal Court" and sees the U.N.  as a "mechanism important to the advocacy of the human rights agenda." While Equality Now was "very glad to see the GOP specifically mention sex trafficking [as a crime], we were very disappointed that they [GOP platform] will not fund abortions, because that hurts millions of women around the world."

Other issues in the platform that draw a new Republican vision of the U.S.-U.N.  relationship include the prickly matter of dues owed by the United States to the U.N., as well as matters of stewardship over the environment.  On the dues question, the platform calls for a "fair, not disproportionate share of the dues," to be paid to the U.N., "once it has reformed its management and taken steps to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse." The monies the U.S.  has contributed toward peacekeeping missions would also be credited toward U.S.  dues.

The GOP opposition to U.N.  control of the global environment is a strongly worded provision: "We reject the extremist call for the United Nations to create a 'Stewardship Council' modeled on the Security Council, to oversee the global environment." The platform cites attempts of "international bureaucrats" to "by-pass" the "processes of national governments."

Gregory Gronbacher of the Grand Rapids, Mich.-based Acton Institute cites international accords on environmental issues, such as the Kyoto protocols, as an example of U.N.  attempts to control how nations use their resources.  An educational foundation, the Institute advises religious leaders on the moral importance of limited government and a free market economy.
Gronbacher, Acton's director of academic research, observes, "The Clinton administration has signed treaties that many Americans are not comfortable with.  Some of the U.N.  conference and treaty requirements are morally problematical with the founding principles of our nation."

Gronbacher added, "It appears Bush will take issues of national sovereignty and the will of the American people into consideration before signing treaties which place U.S.  resources at the disposal of international bureaucrats."

In a bid to form a single global community, a group calling itself the Earth Council has drafted a new “Earth Charter” that calls for all nations to surrender their sovereignty for the “greater good” of a singular global order.
The Charter, which was finalized at a meeting held at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, or UNESCO, headquarters in Paris March 12-14, said that in order to “move forward” as humans, “we must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace.

“Towards this end,” the Charter preamble states, “it is imperative that we, the peoples of Earth, declare our responsibility to one another, to the greater community of life, and to future generations.”

As in similar charters and global declarations put forth by other United Nations groups and affiliates, the Earth Charter claims, “dominant patterns of production and consumption are causing environmental devastation, the depletion of resources, and a massive extinction of species.” The Charter also adopts a class-warfare argument, stating that “benefits of development are not shared equitably and the gap between rich and poor is widening.”
Such gaps, the document claims, have led to increased “poverty, ignorance, and violent conflict” throughout the world, though the Charter’s authors don’t define the problem with specifics.

Furthermore, the Charter claims that without universal participation by all nations, humanity risks “the destruction of [itself] and the diversity of life.”

“To realize these aspirations,” the Charter says, “we must decide to live with a sense of universal responsibility, identifying ourselves with the whole Earth community as well as our local communities. We are at once citizens of different nations and of one world in which the local and global are linked.”

Other high points enumerated in the Charter include:

Protect and restore the integrity of Earth’s ecological systems, with special concern for biological diversity and the natural processes that sustain life

Prevent harm as the best method of environmental protection and, when knowledge is limited, apply a precautionary approach

Eradicate poverty as an ethical, social and environmental imperative

Affirm gender equality and equity as prerequisites to sustainable development and ensure universal access to education, health care and economic opportunity

Integrate into formal education and life-long learning the knowledge, values and skills needed for a sustainable way of life

Prevent cruelty to animals kept in human societies and protect them from suffering, and protect wild animals from methods of hunting, trapping and fishing that cause extreme, prolonged or avoidable suffering

Demilitarize national security systems to the level of a non-provocative defense
posture, and convert military resources to peaceful purposes, including ecological restoration while eliminating nuclear, biological and toxic weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.

Making a commitment to such sweeping change, the Charter said, “requires a change of mind and heart” and a “commitment to the United Nations.” Governments are chided to “fulfill their obligations under existing international agreements,” and to “support the implementation of Earth Charter principles with an international legally binding instrument on environment and development.”

Henry Lamb, executive director of Sovereignty International and Eco-Logic, characterized the Earth Charter as little more than a “polished” version of earlier U.N.-based documents that have also called for the creation of a “global community.”

“This particular document has had a few of the words that could be considered controversial taken out of it,” said Lamb, a frequent columnist for WorldNetDaily. “Other than that, it’s really just more of the same thing—more global government, more global control and less national sovereignty.”

Fortunately, said Lamb, the Earth Charter, while filled with “grandiose ideals” lacks “enforcement” power, at least for now.

“Right now the only global authority that has enforcement power is the World Trade Organization,” he said, adding there was talk that soon the WTO could also be used to enforce new international environmental and human rights treaties as well.

Lamb said the Earth Charter is “following the same path” as an earlier document released by U.N.-based groups, known as the Declaration on Human Rights.
“That one (the declaration) also lacked the ‘hard law’ and legally binding language,” he said, “but the new Charter is leading another one called the ‘International Covenant on Environment and Development.’”

The Covenant document is the one that “contains all the ‘put-them-in-jail’ requirements,” he said.
Once all the appropriate agreements have been made, Lamb said, member states and signatories acting on behalf of U.N. agencies created to “try” the cases in an international court of law would handle eventual enforcement of the provisions contained in them.

In a related story, on Thursday Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C. hosted the 15-member United Nations Security Council on an unprecedented tour of Capitol Hill while urging the members to reform the world body.

Helms, a long time critic of the U.N., visited the General Assembly in January to deliver a speech rebutting the body’s claims that the United States had not done its fair share to shoulder the costs and burdens of many of the U.N.’s missions, including military peacekeeping.

Some members of the Security Council criticized Helms’ viewpoints and the senator’s sponsorship of a bill to pay $819 million in assessed arrearages to the U.N. only if the world body makes some significant reforms as to how funds are dispersed and spent.

Netherlands Ambassador to the U.N. Arnold Peter van Walsum hinted to Helms that the U.S. was essentially blackmailing the U.N. because members know the world body cannot succeed without U.S. funding and participation.

“We are not persuaded by your arguments, but by our enlightened self-interest,” van Walsum said in comments before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which Helms chairs.

Britain’s U.N. Ambassador questioned why other U.N. members should pay their dues if the U.S. would only pay them under certain conditions.

“Is the United States prepared to invest in a United Nations that will not realize its full potential without that investment?” he said.

Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, backed Helms’ claims of misspent funds to some degree when he chastised U.N. Security Council members over the spiraling costs and numbers of U.N. peacekeeping missions.

“You’re heavily involved in Bosnia and Kosovo,” Warner said, adding, “Don’t take on more than you can do, and do effectively.”

According to language in the Earth Charter, however, on the surface it does not appear as though the U.N. has suddenly become less ambitious or more frugal.

Under the sub-chapter of “Social and Economic Justice,” the Charter calls for “social security and safety nets for those who are unable to support themselves”—a provision that would be funded, ostensibly, through a system of wealth redistribution outlined in earlier sections.

Furthermore, Lamb said, it was “interesting” to note the expense the U.N. shoulders to sponsor global symposia and forums, often having to fly representatives from a large number of member states to distant locations. While there, he said, it’s common to see the world body spending lavishly on accommodations, which seems, he added, to belie the UN’s stated goal of helping impoverished peoples.

“I’ve been to a great many U.N.-sponsored events,” Lamb told WorldNetDaily, “and it always amazes me to see how many representatives fall for this stuff simply because they don’t want to be blacklisted for the next U.N. conference.

“Sometimes it seems like it’s not about getting real work done, but just about being there,” he said.

 By WILLIAM M. REILLY

 UNITED NATIONS, March 20 (UPI) -- A United Nations University study of NATO 's intervention in Kosovo said Monday a profound change in world politics has emerged, mainly that sovereignty can be forfeited on humanitarian grounds.

 But the study co-edited by the Tokyo-based institution's vice rector, Ramesh Thakur, and Albrecht Schnabel with contributor Ray Funnel, a retired Australian air marshal, warned the precedent will have dangerously undermined international order unless world powers can agree on principles to guide future interventions, in similar circumstances. "Kosovo and The Challenge of Humanitarian Intervention" is billed as a "compendium of authoritative viewpoints on many dimensions of the 1999 crisis" and on recommended follow-up steps.

 Those steps include promotion of "an international consensus about the point at which a state forfeits its sovereignty," and removal of veto power in the Security Council in exceptional circumstances "so that the support of a majority of the great powers is all that is required to permit states to engage in humanitarian war."

 "Kosovo confronted us with an abiding challenge of humanitarian intervention: namely, is it morally just, legally permissible and militarily feasible?" asked Thakur. "In today's dangerously unstable world full of complex conflicts, concerned countries and citizens face the painful dilemma of being condemned if they do and damned if they don't.

 "To use force unilaterally is to violate international law and undermine world order. Yet to respect sovereignty all the time is to be complicit in human rights violations sometimes. To argue that the U.N. Security Council must give its consent to humanitarian war is to risk policy paralysis by handing over the agenda to the most egregious and obstreperous."

 "The bottom line question for us is this: Faced with another Holocaust or Rwanda-type genocide on the one hand, and a Security Council veto on the other, what would we do?" Thakur asked. "A new consensus on humanitarian intervention is urgently needed."

 Contributors, the authors said, cited the need to reform the Security Council, including possible removal of veto power in such circumstances as those present in Kosovo.

 The U.N. General Assembly has been wrestling with council reform for years now, including the status of veto for the present five permanent members of Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States as well as any possible additions to the select club.

 "The permanent members and their interests should not prevent the Security Council from getting involved and stall the U.N.'s attempts to provide assistance to those in need. Otherwise we might see more NATO-style actions with less or no UN involvement - and thus less order and less justice in our global community," said Schnabel, the other co-editor.

 "It is good that the international system can tear down the walls of state sovereignty in cases where states kill their own people," he said. "Organizations like the U.N., however, need to be willing and able to confront these catastrophes wherever they occur."

 Russian and Chinese opposition to military intervention in Kosovo prevented the Security Council from acting so NATO decided to intervene on its own.

 Thakur said, "Many of today's wars are nasty, brutish and internal. The world community cannot help all victims, but must step in where it can make a difference. Selective indignation is inevitable, for we simply cannot intervene everywhere, every time. But we must still pursue policies of effective indignation. Humanitarian intervention must be collective, not unilateral. And it must be legitimate, not in violation of the agreed rules which comprise the foundations of
 world order."

 The study, released at U.N. headquarters in New York, said, "continuing fallout from Kosovo has the potential to redraw the landscape of international politics, with significant ramifications for the UN, major powers and regional organizations, and the way in which world politics are understood and interpreted."

 That fallout was from parties involved in the conflict, NATO allies, the immediate region surrounding the conflict, and further.

 "Any possible argument that NATO might underwrite European stability has lost validity for Russia," the study said.

 China's concern over what happened in Yugoslavia may be repeated in Asia, was also addressed.

 "The problem of using force by the strong against the weak will only create disorder. While China does not want to challenge or compete with U.S. superiority, it rejects U.S. domination or hegemony," the UNU study said.

 Many in Islamic countries argued that NATO committed strategic mistakes. Among them: not intervening earlier, refusing to deploy ground troops to put a decisive end to the conflict, and not anticipating President Slobodan Milosevic's resort to the eviction of hundreds of thousands of Muslims from Kosovo, the study said.

 It pointed out many in those countries supported the war because they identified with the Muslim victims in Kosovo.

 Reflecting the positions of the Non-Aligned Movement and the Organization for African Unity in particular, according to the South African government, concluded that unilateral intervention, no matter how noble the motive, is not acceptable, said the study. A broad, non-discriminatory multi-lateralism (in all areas, including trade and security) is the best safeguard for the developing world against unilateral misuse of power by the strong.

 "For many developing countries, the international community runs the danger of becoming hostage to the machinations of a few privileged and powerful countries," the study said. "Many developing countries may feel compelled to move toward ensuring greater security for themselves through acquisition of more weaponry. There is almost total unanimity in India that the country needs to strengthen itself militarily to the extent that there can be no scope for any interference in the affairs on the sub-continent."

 Critics of NATO's Kosovo action said in the study that international efforts to contain the conflict were "modest and hesitant. Later, faced with a brutal and rapidly escalating war, theinternational community reacted with consternation and confusion."

 Said the study, "What was at stake was not only the fate of the Albanian population of Kosovo. It was also the standing and reputation of the major democratic countries involved in the NATO operation and the credibility of NATO itself."

 (The study is available at http://www.unu.edu and UNU Press plans to publish a book based on the study later this year.)
 

 Copyright 2000 by United Press International.
 All rights reserved.

                  By Julie Foster
                  © 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

Former Army Spc. Michael New, court-martialed in 1996 for refusing to obey an order to wear a United Nations uniform, will appear before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the highest military tribunal in the land, on Feb. 4.

Considered a hero by many, the media-shy New refused to don the U.N. uniform while stationed in Germany in 1995 during a peacekeeping mission. This hearing is yet another in a long line of court battles fought to reverse the bad conduct discharge the Army gave New in 1996.

Given his past court battles, New's prospects for victory look grim. This is his second appeal in the military court system -- which New's father, Daniel, characterizes as "an intense adversarial relationship."

"It's not like a regular trial," said Daniel New in an exclusive WorldNetDaily interview.

Michael New's lawyer will be given 15 minutes to outline his arguments that New was not given a fair court martial. Judge Gary Jewell, who decided the initial case, did not allow any evidence brought before the panel of jurors on the basis that it was irrelevant to the question of whether or not New had disobeyed orders to wear the U.N. uniform.

Following New's statement, lawyers representing the U.S. Army will be given 15 minutes to refute New's arguments. At any time during the one-hour proceeding, the panel of five presiding judges may interrupt with questions that count against each side's time, according to New's lawyer, retired Lt. Col. Henry Hamilton, a former Army lawyer.

"It doesn't matter, in this case, whether [New] was right or wrong" in his refusal to don U.N. accoutrements, said Capt. Paul Fiorino, appointed by the Army to defend New in an earlier round of appeals. "The fact is, he was denied a fair trial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He was railroaded and that's wrong. A defendant should be allowed to present his evidence to those who determine his guilt."

"We brought a mountain of evidence that the U.N. uniform is not regulation," Daniel New said.

But the Army maintains the issue before the court is simply whether or not a soldier can disobey an order. Since the scope of the allowed debate is so limited, New can no longer argue the real issue -- should an                  American soldier be subject to wearing foreign military uniforms and serving under foreign military officers as occurred with New's unit in Germany.

New's officers told him that the president now has the authority to place Americans under the United Nations, according to Presidential Decision Directive 25, signed in 1994. While an executive summary of that directive exists, the document itself is classified.

Supporters of New's position claim that President Clinton has, under PDD 25, "affected to render the military independent of and superior to the civil power" -- civil power being Congress, not the Commander in Chief.

Attempts to convince military courts that foreign command of U.S. troops is unconstitutional have been declared "non-justiciable," that is, having political ramifications and involving constitutional questions that military courts are unable to address.

However, New has been denied a hearing in civilian courts until the military appeals are completed. The Army successfully argued that the case is exclusively a military matter and has no place before civilian courts.

Political ramifications may be exactly what some are avoiding in their lack of comment on New's case. WorldNetDaily repeatedly attempted to contact Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas, representing New's home state to no avail. A staunch Clinton defender during the president's impeachment proceedings, she did not provide any comment on the matter.

Texas Sen. Kay Bailey-Hutchison, a Republican, also refused to take an official stand regarding New's case, demonstrating that the issue crosses party lines.

"This is not a Republican or Democrat issue," said Daniel New. "This is a bipartisan American issue" -- and one that many other congressional representatives have not shied away from.

  Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, not only vocally supports New, but went so far as to sponsor a bill in Congress that would have made it illegal to serve under any foreign power, including the U.N., against a soldier's will -- a move that would clear up any ambiguity on the part of the courts.

Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert also backs New's position. Ironically, though the list of New's supporters in Congress is a long one with no vocal opposition, the press has largely avoided the story.

Should New's appeal be denied, he will either take his case before the U.S. Supreme Court or return to federal court where he will again attempt to raise the issue of whether the president has the authority to place U.S. troops under foreign command.

Michael New currently lives in Texas where he is continuing his education. He maintains his distance from the media, saying, "I was prepared to go to prison. I wasn't prepared to be famous."

                  By Stephan Archer and Sarah Foster
                  © 1999 WorldNetDaily.com

American gun owners and advocacy groups like the National Rifle Association are suddenly finding that when it comes to firearms legislation, they had better pay attention to what's happening not only in Congress and their state legislatures, but at the United Nations, where the Second Amendment is being quietly dismantled behind closed doors.

Since the end of the Cold War, the disarmament community has brought small arms and light weapons within its sphere of interest, placing them and their "proliferation" on a par with such long-standing concerns as nuclear missiles and bio-chemical weapons. Though the terms tend to be used interchangeably, the United Nations defines small arms as weapons designed for personal use, while light weapons are those designed for several persons operating as a crew. Together, they account for virtually every kind of firearm from revolvers, pistols, rifles, carbines and light machine guns all the way to heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, portable anti-aircraft and anti-tank guns, mortars up to 100 mm caliber, and land mines.

On Sept. 24, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, of Ghana, called on members of the Security Council to "tackle one of the key challenges in preventing conflict in the next century" -- the proliferation and "easy availability" of small arms and light weapons, which Annan identified as the "primary tools of violence" in conflicts throughout the world.

It was the first time the council had met to discuss the subject, and Annan praised the United Nations as a whole for playing "a leading role in putting the issue of small arms firmly on the international agenda."

Even in societies not beset by civil war, the easy availability of small arms has in many cases contributed to violence and political instability," he said. "Controlling that easy availability is a prerequisite for a successful peace-building process."

Talk is one thing, but the Security Council then unanimously adopted the "Report of the Group of Governmental Experts on Small Arms," which had been released Aug. 19 to the General Assembly. The 26-member group's various recommendations, two dozen in all, add up to a comprehensive program for worldwide gun control, and call for a total ban on private ownership of "assault rifles." A few of the recommendations:

                      *  All small arms and light weapons which are not under legal civilian possession and which are not required for the purposes of national defense and internal security, should be collected and destroyed by States as expeditiously as possible.

                       *All States should determine in their national laws and regulations which arms are permitted for civilian possession and the conditions under which they can be used.

                      * All States should ensure that they have in place adequate laws, regulations and administrative procedures to exercise effective control over the legal possession of small arms and light weapons and over their transfer in order ... to prevent illicit trafficking.

                       *States are encouraged to integrate measures to control ammunition ... into prevention and reduction measures relating to small arms and light weapons.

                       *States should work towards ...appropriate national legislation, regulations and licensing requirements that define conditions under which firearms can be acquired, used and traded by private persons. In particular, they should consider the prohibition of unrestricted trade and private ownership of small arms and light weapons specifically designed for military purposes, such as automatic guns (e.g., assault rifles and machine-guns).

The report notes with approval countries like China that have acted to "strengthen legal or regulatory controls." China reported that some 300,000 "illicit" guns were seized and destroyed last year by officials acting in response to "new and more stringent national regulations that have come into force ... on the control on guns within the country and on arms exports." France, too, in 1998 "acted to reinforce governmental control over military and civilian arms and ammunition, and introduced more rigorous measures regulating the holding of arms by civilians." And the United States gave assurances that the federal government has taken "a number of relevant national measures." All United States citizens, wherever located, and any person subject to United States law, must now register in order to engage in arms brokering activities. ..." That is, prior written approval from the State Department is required.

Contacted for comment, a State Department official who requested anonymity denied that the report spelled out gun control programs being imposed on this country via the United Nations, despite the fact that a State Department senior foreign affairs specialist, Herbert Calhoun, had served as a member of the group and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright -- representing the United States on the Security Council -- had endorsed the report.

"The United Nations will not dictate domestic gun control for any nation," the official told WorldNetDaily. "They can make recommendations and nations can act on those recommendations as they see fit, but we will never have the United Nations telling countries what they should do."

Questioned about specific recommendations, he replied, "Those are just recommendations --and surprisingly, a number of countries, including the U.S., take them up on those recommendations. In fact, we support all 24 of those recommendations."

                  World 'awash' with small arms

The current surge of activity at the United Nations against small arms was signaled in January 1995 by then-Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali in his "Supplement to an Agenda for Peace," a position paper on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the United Nations.

The world, he said, was "awash" with small arms that were responsible for "most of the deaths in current conflicts." Traffic in these weapons is "very difficult to monitor, let alone intercept." Boutros-Ghali urged that since progress had been made in the area of weapons of mass destruction and major weapons systems, "parallel progress in conventional arms, particularly in respect to light weapons," was needed.

In response to Boutros-Ghali's call, in 1997 Secretary General Kofi Annan upgraded the United Nations' disarmament office to departmental status as the Department of Disarmament Affairs, citing his intention to place greater emphasis on small arms and light weapons. The Department for Disarmament affairs is headed by Under-Secretary General for Disarmament Affairs Jayantha Dhanapala of Sri Lanka.

The new department continues to work on the traditional issues of nuclear missile systems, test ban treaties and the like -- but there's now a special website for small arms issues.

This activity at the international level quickly drew the attention of the National Rifle Association, which has posted a warning in a fact sheet on its website.

"While the actions of the U.N. do not have direct impact on U.S. law unless passed as a treaty by the U.N. General Assembly and ratified by the U.S. Senate, ... the U.N. can do a great deal to interfere with gun owners' rights by lending an appearance of legitimacy to oppressive anti-gun measures. It is clear that one of the goals of this effort is to demonize civilian ownership of guns and make strict regulation of firearms appear as the only acceptable alternative."

                  An 'unholy alliance'

Attorney Thomas Mason, who represents the National Rifle Association at meetings of the United Nations, told WorldNetDaily how this effort to radically reduce private gun ownership is being furthered not only by U.N. bureaucrats and delegates, but with the help of non-governmental organizations -- "NGOs" as they're called -- that have been granted special consultative status to observe the proceedings and, when invited, present information and exert considerable influence on delegates and staff.

"A dynamic for worldwide gun control efforts has developed in the international arena over the past five years -- an unholy alliance between NGOs, small to medium-size governments and the United Nations," said Mason. "People have no idea that the United Nations is a totally closed process. There is no public records law or open meetings law. As a member of the public you do not have an automatic right to attend committee meetings. To get in the door you have to be an accredited NGO."

There are over 1,000 non-governmental accredited organizations dealing with the numerous issues with which the United Nations concerns itself: education, health, land use and the environment, and guns. The National Rifle Association received accreditation in 1995, and is one of only two pro-gun NGOs to have been certified. The other is the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia.

"We sought NGO status to monitor the activities of the U.N. in terms of issues that are important to our membership, more so than to become an active lobbying force there," explained Patrick O'Malley, deputy director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action. "That's primarily the role we continue to act in today -- that of observer, monitoring any number of initiatives that they're working on in places as far flung as Geneva, Vienna, Cairo."

"But make no mistake," he added, "We are working actively to ensure that the discussions on specific gun control-connected issues do not in any way pose a threat to our domestic sovereignty or the public policy process that we have here in the United States -- that's the goal of many of the [anti-gun] groups -- to seek a global harmonization -- as they call it -- of domestic gun control laws.

"And when they speak of 'harmonization,' they don't talk about other countries coming to our level where we [in the United States] have a basic right to own a firearm; they're talking about taking the United States to the standard of many other countries where firearms ownership is essentially completely banned.

"There are some highly extremist proposals out there," O'Malley continued, "proposals that range from the bizarre to the ridiculous. Proposals have been put forward that every single round of ammunition manufactured be trackable by satellite so that we can establish a protocol for monitoring what they call 'flows' of small arms and ammunition into areas of conflict."

                  First landmines, next small arms

This diverse mix of non-governmental organizations -- most with anti-gun agendas --national goovernments, and U.N. leaders has been holding workshops and conferences throughout the world on firearms-related issues.

"Workshops in the international arena are essentially meetings to deliberate issues," said Mason. "When a government or NGO sponsors a workshop, it's much more serious than the ordinary person might think. That's where the thinking and talking is done and decisions are made."

One such meeting will be held today at the United Nations headquarters in New York City to discuss the draft of a field guide on light weapons designed for use by humanitarian and relief personnel working in arms control programs in hot spots around the world.

The two-hour technical workshop is sponsored by the Program on Development and Security-- called SAND -- of the Monterey Institute of International Studies, a private graduate school in Monterey, California, and the Bonn International Center for Conversion in Germany. The two "think tanks" are well connected to the United Nations through their work on the international weapons trade and its perceived impact on communities and peace-keeping efforts around the world. Dr. Edward J. Laurance, executive director of the SAND program at the Monterey institute and co-author of the field manual, also serves as a consultant to the United Nations Panel of Governmental Experts on Small Arms and the U.N. Register on Conventional Weapons.

Although it's not unusual for independent groups to give presentations at the United Nations, today's meeting will be chaired by Jayantha Dhanapala, under-secretary general for disarmament affairs. The session and its choice of host are a testimony to the growing influence of NGOs at the United Nations, and highlight the increased attention paid by that body to the "proliferation" of personal firearms throughout the world and their possession by "civilians." The significance of Dhanapala's role heading up the event is well-appreciated by Laurance.

"All NGOs and governments are invited to look at the first draft of our field manual," he told WorldNetDaily. "We're unveiling it at the workshop and getting feedback. But the important thing for us is that the workshop is hosted by the under-secretary general for disarmament."

Laurance sees an even greater role for organizations like SAND and the Bonn International Center in the U.N. decision-making process as that body opens its doors to "civil society."

"Civil society -- that's sort of a buzz word --meaning NGOs, academic experts, the public at large," he explained. "The U.N. increasingly asks people like me and others as consultants. Increasingly, conferences are held cooperatively with the NGO community, and NGOs are being used to provide information and ideas."

Laurance called attention to the success of NGOs in the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. After six years of campaigning, 129 governments in 1997 signed a treaty banning the production and use of land mines. The United States is not one of them.

                  If such a campaign worked with landmines, what about personal firearms?

If you followed the Land Mine Treaty, that's a perfect example of where NGOs were used," he explained. "There was a group of so-called like-minded states that really wanted the treaty and a bunch of others that were on the fence. So the NGOs were used to get the countries that were on the fence to jump in and sign the treaty."

Laurance credits the environmental movement for developing the process domestically and at the international level.

"The environmental groups showed the way," he said. "They had the information and they made it available. We've made that point with the small arms and light weapons issue: that civil society has information, particularly at the local level. It's civil society that's being hurt by these weapons. Civil society can tell governments what weapons are doing the damage and why, and where they come from."

"Many governments understand this," he continued. "The United States is a special case because of the whole gun control issue, and the United States has a very special challenge: They have to constantly worry that what they do in this area internationally doesn't have any domestic effects."

Besides his work in academia and with the United Nations, Laurance and the SAND program are active participants in a newly-formed, globe-spanning coalition of national and international peace, disarmament, humanitarian and anti-gun groups called the International Action Network on Small Arms --which he helped found. It is the kind of far-flung association that would have been all but impossible to organize and direct in the days before the Internet and e-mail.

                  'Flame for peace' gun bonfire

"Perhaps the way forward for the peace movement will be the high-tech route, using modern technology to lead campaigns of the 21st century," according to Tamar Gabelnick of the Federation of American Scientists, and a founder of IANSA. In an article describing the new group, Gabelnick wrote, "IANSA will act as a coordinator and facilitator for groups worldwide working to prevent the proliferation and misuse of small arms and light weapons. A small secretariat will be complemented in its role as an information warehouse and facilitator of 'mini-campaigns" by heavy reliance on the web and e-mail. This format will help to harmonize the activities of a diverse group of organizations while allowing the flexibility necessary to address the components of this multi-faceted issue."

Recalling Mason's remarks about the "unholy alliance," funding for the new group has come largely from five agencies of small to medium-size governments: The Belgian Ministry for Development Cooperation; the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the United Kingdom Department for International Development; and the Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

After several organizing meetings beginning in December 1997, IANSA was formally launched May 11 of this year at The Hague during the Appeal for Peace Conference, which reportedly drew an estimated 7,000 delegates from around the world to celebrate the centennial of The Hague Peace Conferences of 1899. To celebrate the formation of the new coalition, organizers destroyed a collection of firearms donated by governments in a "Flame for Peace" bonfire in the city center.

Four months after its debut, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan spoke glowingly of the new organization for its role in directing public attention to the issue of firearms.

"The momentum for combating small arms proliferation has also come from civil society, which has been increasingly active on this issue," Annan said in his Sept. 24 address to the Security Council. "The establishment early this year of the International Action Network on Small Arms has helped to sharpen public focus on small arms, which has helped us gain the public support necessary for success."

"IANSA is a coalition of non-governmental organizations that was established to organize international efforts for controlling the global trade in firearms -- that's its main purpose," said Michael Klare, one of its founders. Klare teaches Peace and Conflict Studies at Hampshire College in Massachusetts and is co-director of the Project on Light Weapons of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

"It's not designed to become a large organization on its own," he continued. "People feel very strongly about not creating a new bureaucracy. We don't have officers at this point because the understanding is that the members of IANSA are organizations themselves and only those organizations can set their own policy."

 E.J. Hogendoorn of Human Rights Watch and, like Klare, one of IANSA's founders, views it more as a campaign.

"It's a very encompassing campaign by different groups that bring different agendas to the campaign, but all of them center around the misuse of light weapons and small arms," said Hogendoorn. "So, for example, Human Rights Watch -- we're not a gun control organization per se, and traditionally most of our work has been on human rights concerns. But we do care about people selling weapons to human rights abusers."

Like Human Rights Watch, most members of IANSA are not gun control organizations per se, nor are they involved in domestic gun-related issues -- but the measures developed to control gun trafficking at the international level will necessarily require backup by domestic measures. Membership in IANSA is open to non-governmental organizations, community groups and professional associations that support at least some of the group's policy objectives and "do not oppose or advocate opposition to those objectives, which they do not explicitly support." Organizers have developed a list of gun control measures IANSA supports, including: Reducing the availability of weapons to civilians in all societies. Providing resources to develop the capacity in national and local governments to achieve effective controls over small arms possession and use. Promoting safe storage practices for small arms on the part of citizens and states. Systematic collection and destruction of weapons that are illegally held by civilians. Collection and verifiable destruction of surplus weapons as part of U.N. peacekeeping operations. Promoting programs to encourage citizens to surrender illegal, unsafe or unwanted firearms. Banning the advertisement and promotion of small arms to civilians.

                  International gun control treaty coming?

At least 200 organizations have signed on with IANSA as supporters or active participants, including Human Rights Watch, the Federation of American Scientists, Pax Christi, World Council of Churches, Amnesty International, Gun Free South Africa, Viva Rio, the leading anti-gun group in Rio de Janiero, the Arias Foundation in Costa Rio, and the British American Security and Intelligence Center -- or Basic, which has offices in London and Washington.

The lobbying efforts of IANSA and "likeminded" governments has begun paying off. A conference is in the works to be held in 2001 that will cover all aspects of small arms --and some kind of a firearms protocol or treaty will probably be on the agenda.

According to the National Rifle Association's Tom Mason: "Proposals are being floated of an international treaty banning civilian possession of military-style firearms -- though it's impossible to distinguish military from civilian; other proposals are calling for the destruction of all surplus military firearms, calling for the registration and regulation internationally of all manufacturing and shipping of firearms -- there's a whole series of very radical proposals.

"They will have their first meeting to prepare for the conference on February 28," Mason said.

                  "We will be there," he promised.

                  Stephan Archer and Sarah Foster are staff
                  reporters for WorldNetDaily.

By Betsy Pisik
THE WASHINGTON TIMES                                                         NEW YORK

Leaders of the United Nations warned at yesterday’s opening of the U.N. General Assembly that national borders will no longer be a deterrent to justified humanitarian intervention. Traditional considerations of national sovereignty will no longer be taken into account, Kofi Annan, secretary-general of the U.N., told the opening session of the 188-member world body. Governments must not allow divisions within the Security Council to derail legitimate intervention in places such as Rwanda and Kosovo, he said. “If states bent on criminal behavior know that frontiers are not an absolute defense, if they know that the Security Council will take action to halt crimes against humanity, then they will not embark on such a course of action in expectations of sovereign impunity,” he said.
“Massive and systematic violations of human rights— wherever they may take place—should not be allowed to stand.”

Traditional talk of human rights, globalization and conflict resolution took on new immediacy against the backdrop of civilian atrocities in Kosovo and in East Timor, where U.N. troops, mostly Australian, began arriving yesterday. Leaders of several nations—including France, Britain, Norway, South Africa and Tanzania—largely agreed with that view at the opening session of the two-week opening debate of the U.N. General Assembly.

However, the newly elected president of Algeria, Abdelaziz Bouteflika, denounced international interference without the consent of a government. “We remain extremely sensitive to any undermining of our sovereignty, not only because sovereignty is our final defense against the rules of an unequal world,” said Mr. Bouteflika, “but because we are not taking part in the decision-making process by the Security Council.” Mr. Bouteflika was speaking in his capacity of head of government as well as the current president of the Organization of African Unity.

President Clinton, by tradition the second speaker on the opening day, postponed his appearance until today in deference to the Jewish High Holy Day Yom Kippur. The U.N.  declined to move the opening day of the debate to accommodate the Jewish holiday.

The leaders of Cambodia, Bangladesh, Namibia, Georgia, Jordan, El Salvador and Ivory Coast also spoke yesterday, often at considerable length. Although this two-week session is usually referred to as the General Debate, there is little direct engagement on the issues.
France, traditionally one of the most supportive U.N. members, called for an expansion of the organization’s role to prevent human rights violations. “The United Nations’ mission is not limited to the settlement of conflicts between states,” Lionel Jospin, the Prime Minister of France, said. “With man’s growing aspirations for greater freedom and responsibility, its mission extends to the protection of human dignity, within each state and, when necessary—as the Charter allows—against states.”

Denouncing “state-instigated violence,” Mr. Jospin urged his colleagues to “uphold the principle of international intervention under U.N. auspices, to assist the victims.”
Robin Cook, Britain’s foreign secretary, echoed Mr. Jospin’s sentiments. “We have a shared responsibility to act also when confronted with genocide, mass displacement of people or major breaches of international humanitarian law. To know that such atrocities are being committed and not to act against them is to make us complicit in them.” He reaffirmed Britain’s commitment to contribute British police officers to U.N. forces.

But Portuguese President Jorge Fernando Branco de Sampaio spoke with evident sadness of the havoc wrought on his nation’s former colony, East Timor, and blamed the United Nations for not protecting the people who it had encouraged to decide their own future.
“The very credibility of the U.N. itself was as stake,” he said. “How could the United Nations, having organized the popular consultation, betray the confidence placed in it by the people of East Timor?

The United Nation’s authorization of the Australian-led peacekeeping force in East Timor “shows to the world that the council does not remain indifferent to challenges to its authority, nor does it allow them to go unanswered.”

South African President Thabo Mbeki called on the organization to undertake swifter preventive action, in keeping with Article 1 of the U.N. Charter.
“This imposes a solemn and supreme responsibility on the United Nations to work for the prevention of conflicts, and to endeavor to resolve them so that durable peace can be established,” he said.

Among the other speeches yesterday: Colombian President Andres Pastrana urged a unified global opposition to narcotics. Sheik Hasina, prime minister of Bangladesh, linked development with peace, and urged Western nations to increase their support for U.N. agencies.  Pal Chaudhry, prime minister of Fiji, called for a greater global commitment to sustainable development.  Cambodia’s Hun Sen called for more assistance for the developing world and lifting the American embargo against Cuba.

 Like many of you, growing up under the tutelage of the public school system and the big three television networks in the 1960's and 1970's, I recall the zealous and reverential treatment afforded the world's eighth wonder: the United Nations.

 Its ideals, they said, were homespun American ideals. Its immediate mission: to perpetuate the same across the globe. Its ultimate objective: to bring an end to poverty, prejudice, conflict, and war. Indeed, some envisioned and vigorously proclaimed future life
 under the United Nations as the last and highest stage of evolutionary man 1.

 In textbook and pamphlet, newspaper and film clip this dream was perpetuated, and many of us longing for peace and security in the aftermath of two consecutive world wars were caught away in the imagery and emotion of this coming millennial Zion. It would be glorious.

 So glorious that warning bells should have broadcast throughout the land a solemn, "beware!" prior to any casting of votes for or against the UN Charter. But the bells were muffled, the Charter fast-tracked through the US Senate, and today we suffer under our great mistake (our faux pas).

 Yet, not to fear. We may correct our error. With the aid of time and the persistent efforts of a few watch dog organizations 2 tens of millions of Americans have finally come to realize the UN's idealism is less than ideal; its similarity and loyalty to the US system, a facade; and its
 promise for peace and liberty, more a formula for war and tyranny.

 And so the days of unmitigated support for the United Nations and its mission are far gone, and ever fading. Yet to keep the momentum moving in our favor, re-exposing the uncomfortable truth about the UN can never be overdone.

 Truth 1: The UN is no friend to American ideals.

 A. The UN's Founders were known Communists

If it's true that the personality, purpose, and accomplishments of an organization are highly affected by its leadership, then membership in the United Nations spelled trouble from the start. Of the 17 individuals identified by the US State Department as having helped shape US
 policy leading to the creation of the United Nations, all but one were later identified as secret members of the Communist Party USA 3.

 Joining them at the UN's founding conference were 43 members of the ultra influential, ultra pro-socialist, globalist think-tank the Council On Foreign Relations, (6 of the 43 CFR members having the additional distinction of membership in the Communist Party USA) 4. And, importantly, the UN's first Secretary General and orchestrator of the San Francisco conference was the man later convicted as a Soviet agent - Alger Hiss 5.

 Not a good start.

 Following in the footsteps of that unhallowed class of '46, the ideological makeup of the UN's leadership has been constant. In its 54 year history all seven Secretary Generals of the UN have been either dedicated socialists or communists 6, all 15 of the UN Under-Secretary-Generals for Political and Security Council Affairs (the UN's military boss) have been communists (all but one from the Soviet Union/Russian Federation) 7, and two thirds of the membership in the General Assembly, the Security Council, and in the World Court have always been representatives of socialist and communist nations.

 Further, the collection of US employees at the UN have not fared well either. Besides the scandal of having American communists Alger Hiss and company as the creators of the UN, a 1952 official Senate investigation into the then 6 year old United Nations revealed, "extensive evidence indicating that there is today in the UN among the American
 employees there, the greatest concentration of Communists that this committee has ever encountered 8." And these were high officials.

 Twenty years later, the "anti-American, anti-freedom" flavor of the UN continued unabated, which prompted former UN enthusiast Republican Senator Barry Goldwater to call for US withdrawal from the UN, and the re-stationing of its headquarters to a place "more in keeping with the philosophy of the majority of its voting members, somewhere like
 Peking or Moscow 9."

Things were no different by the 1980's, so Republican President Ronald Reagan,                   expressed the same conviction; adding that the UN was the host of the greatest           concentration of spies in the world and thus he vowed to withdraw the US from                         the UN. (He did boot UNESCO out of the US)

 Which leads to the next reason the UN deserves our full measure of scorn. With a line-up of communists, socialists, and spies founding and still running the show at the UN; it seems a bit hard to believe that the political framework created by such notorious figures would be
 consistent with the American Constitution? Isn't it? And there is plenty of proof..

 B. The UN's Charter is the antithesis of the US Constitution.

 Its Bill of Rights 10 creates radical new rights to include:

 The socialist right to "adequate" housing, a "living" wage, rest and leisure, medical care, social services, employment security, sick pay, disability pay, old age security pay, and widow's pay.

 The family threatening right for children to possess "freedom of thought, conscience, and religion [which has led to children suing their parents in the United States]," and the right to privacy (i.e. the right for a child to seek an abortion without parental consent.)

 The sovereignty destroying right for humans to immigrate and receive welfare services in whatever nation they choose.

 The brainwashing right for "students" to learn the "principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations."

 And the statist right for the UN to eradicate any and all "rights and freedoms… exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations 11," A Soviet Constitution style proviso, to accompany all of these and more Soviet style rights 12.

 Its Promotion of Democratic Institutions is a pretense.

 Not one UN delegate or official is democratically elected by the people.

 The 185 national delegates to the General Assembly don't possess real representative power anyway. They may only "consider…discuss…advise…or make suggestions to the Security Council 13." An arrangement similar to the meaningless representation
 the American Colonies suffered under the British Parliament.

 However, the 15 member nations of the Security Council (5 permanent members and ten rotating) do have substantial power and are unchecked in this power by election or constitutional constraint. Which leads to the next point 14.

 Its Separation of Powers is an illusion.

The UN appears to have three separate branches of government with the General Assembly and the Security Council being symbolic of our House and Senate; the Secretary General symbolic of our President; and the World Court symbolic of our Supreme Court.

 But, as already demonstrated, the General Assembly has only advisory powers, the Secretary General is but the chief administrative officer of the UN, who, like the General Assembly, may only "bring to the attention of the Security Council" matters he deems important 15, while the World Court is subject to the Security Council's absolute veto upon
 any of its decisions.

 Furthermore, the Security Council may, if it so chooses, judge any legal matter it sees fit, only being advised to "take into consideration that legal disputes should as a general rule be referred to the International Court of Justice 16."

Thus all powers legislative, executive, and judicial reside in the Security Council, with the five permanent members being the real power center since the non- permanent members serve but two years 17 and lack absolute veto power 18.

 Stunningly, in the serious matter of sanctions or war, once initiated, the General Assembly is even stripped of its petty right to consult with the Security Council, unless the Council "requests" their input 19.

 Additionally, regional military and economic alliances, such as NATO, the EU, ASIAN, and NAFTA, are all, by their own treaty law, and the UN Charter which authorized their existence, subject to the rule of the UN Security Council, to whom they must report all actions "under contemplation;" to whom they must seek the approval for any sanctions
 they intend to impose; and to whom they must bow in obeisance when the Security Council deems it necessary to delegate out enforcement actions 20.

Thus regional arrangements are part of the UN web, and subject to the centralized control of the few men who make up the permanent membership of the Security Council.

Monstesque taught, and the founders concurred and improved on the principle, that the concentration of all power legislative, executive, and judicial in one office is the very definition of tyranny 21. So what then is the Security Council but a five- headed world tyrant?

 Its National Sovereignty Protection clause was and is a ploy.

 Article 2, Verse 7 which forbids the UN from intervening "in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state" was inserted as an afterthought to calm the fears of conservatives in the US Senate 50 years ago. The clause offers no such security.

 Every other clause, every other sentence, every other word in the UN Charter calls for international oversight over every possible affair on the planet. Even the sovereignty clause has a mile wide escape hatch which reads "this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII."

 But Chapter VII, Articles 39 through 42 include the Security Council's power to "determine the existence of any threat to. . .international peace and security," and then to take whatever actions "as may be necessary" such as "interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communications," and or, "action
 by air, sea, or land forces." Chapter VII, Article 50 even gives the Security Council the power to wage war or impose sanctions on non-member nations. If that isn't the power to intervene in internal matters, what is? Evidence enough, says former Top Communist Party member, Joseph Z. Kornfeder, that it's clearly recognizable that "the UN "blueprint" is a
 communist one 22."

 Truth 2: The UN has not protected sovereignty, nor promoted freedom.

 A. The UN's history confirms the above claim.

 The UN is the enemy of national sovereignty. A few examples:

The Word Trade Organization, with the aid of GATT, for instance, usurps the right of nations to establish their own foreign commerce policy via 40,000 pages of regulations, scores of regulatory agencies, and its employment of sanctions versus violators.

The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund routinely blackmail client nations to alter internal policies via structural loans 23. Typical demands include: the establishment of planned economies; the nationalization of utilities, major industries, and banking; the creation of an export dependent economy; and the implementation of national birth control policies. In a nutshell they blackmail countries into establishing socialist based economies, which dooms them to economic failure, and thus greater dependency on the UN, its banks, and the international community.

 The UN's military uses brute force to decide the fate of wars between sovereign nations and or internal warring factions as it did in the Belgium Congo, Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Bosnia, and Haiti. Presently, the UN is engaged in 17 "peacekeeping" operations (wars) enlisting troops from 77 nations (world wars), and has waged war 59 times in its brief 55 years of existence. Some peace organization! More quietly, it has murdered hundreds of thousands through trade embargoes, a half million children in Iraq alone 24, robbing innocent civilians of the necessities of life, all because the UN denies the sovereign right of nations, like Iraq,
to maintain a modern national defense system. Perhaps we don't understand the power of precedent setting.

 UNESCO and the World Health Organization have wormed their way into member governments promoting sex education, homosexuality as normal and healthy, abortion, the right of a child to "privacy," population control, and scientific breeding 25.

 The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), first led by passionate socialist and New Ager Maurice Strong, has set fear-driven environmental standards which are currently being implemented in the United States and many other "free" nations. Targeted is the US who is
 the "guilty" party that must pay the world's environmental bill. Aligned with that charge are calls for the worldwide redistribution of wealth and technology. And because environmental threats are in this fanatical view, "the number 1 international security concern," national sovereignty has been identified by UNEP as a barrier that must be breached 26.

Truth is there are so many regulatory agencies listed on the UN's homepage, branching off in so many different directions with sub-agencies, and sub-agencies of sub-agencies, that are designed to interfere with the sovereignty of nations, that one could spend a week of
 research trying to come up with an honest head count.
 

 Footnotes:

 1.See Humanist Manifesto I and II
 2. Howard Phillip's Conservative Caucus, Phyllis Schaffly's Eagle
 Forum, Pat Buchanan's American Cause, but most especially Robert
 Welch's John Birch Society (which has fought the UN for 40 years)
 3. Postwar Foreign Policy Preparation, 1839-1845, U.S. State
 Department; Interlocking Subversion in Government Departments, U.S.
 Senate Internal Security Subcommittee report, July 30, 1953.
 4. Jasper, William F. Global Tyranny Step By Step: The United Nations
 and the Emerging World Order (Appleton, WI: Western Islands 1992)
 pp. 47-48.
 5. Ibid, pp. 47-48.
 6. Ibid, pp. 67-71.
 7. Ibid, pp. 16-17.
 8. Activities of US Citizens Employed by the UN, hearings before the
 Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 1952, pp. 407-408.
 9. U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater, Congressional Record, October 26,
 1971, p. S16764.
 10. See The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, The UN
 Conference on the Child. See also, the assortment of resolutions and
 addendum's found at the UN's WebPages which have been added over
 the years.
 11. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 29, Verse 3.
 Note: Verse 2 also utilizes the tactic of the old Soviet and "new" Russian
 Constitution when it states: "in the exercise of his rights and freedoms,
 everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by
 law." And of course the law then rules against rights, which rights are
 inalienable in the US system.
 12. Griffin, G. Edward. The Fearful Master: A Second Look at the
 United Nations (Boston, MA, Western Islands, 1964) pp. 126-127.
 13. UN Charter, Articles 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, and 18.
 14. Ibid, Articles 23-54, 83-84, 93-94.
 15. Ibid, Article 99.
 16. Ibid, Article 36, Verse 3.
 17. Ibid, Article 23.
 18. The absolute veto, unlike the veto power of US Presidents cannot
 be subject to an override vote. It is, as it says, absolute, and thus a
 dictatorial power.
 19. UN Charter, Article 12, Verse 1.
 20. Ibid, Article 52, Verse 3, Article 53, Verse 1, and Article 54.
 21. Madison, James, Federalist Papers, Article 47.
 22. Griffin, p. 120.
 23. Structural loans require loan recipients to comply with political terms
 in order to get the cash.
 24. BBC, Iraq Reports Attacks Outside No-fly Zones, August 17,
 1999. UNESCO is the source the BBC quoted as per the half million
 figure.
 25. Jasper, Chapters 8 and 9.
 26. Ibid, Chapter 7.

 In the 1950's the UN undermined freedom's victory in Korea by accepting rules of engagement and passing on secrets to Russia and China which made victory impossible for South Korea and the United States 27. They then chose silence and inaction while Soviet tanks rolled into Hungary crushing freedom fighters who fought these tanks with sticks and stones.

In the 1960's the UN invaded Katanga (in the Belgium Congo) and foiled that                      provinces quest for independence from communist murderer and torturer Patrice                  Lamumba 28; and likewise declared tiny Rhodesia "a threat to international peace,"             enabling pro-Communist terrorist Robert Mugabe to seize power. Both the result of              an official UN "anti-colonialist" 29 policy which in the name of democracy spread  communism throughout Africa, Asia, and the Americas from the 1950's clear up into the 1980's. Showing their pro-Communist partisanship, Russia, China, and Cuba's influence on all of these revolutions was perennially and officially denied by the UN, who dubbed all communist revolutions as "spontaneous." uprisings of the poor and politically
 ostracized.

 In the 1970's, the UN admitted mass murderer Red China, despite the Charter rule to admit "peace-loving nations 30" only. They added insult to injury by granting China the power and prestige of permanent Security Council status, while simultaneously kicking out free Taiwan.
 They winked while Security Council member the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, but then suppressed IMF loans to Nicaragua and Iran at key moments in their battle against communist backed revolutions in their nations, citing "human rights" violations 31.

 In the 1980's the UN organized an international boycott against South Africa which favored the Soviet, PLO, and Cuban backed African National Congress, which in turn toppled the South African government (the key UN anti-colonial victory in Africa), leading to an immediate turn toward socialism (his first act was to socialize medicine), foreign aid, reverse discrimination, and a nullification of a promised coalition government. Amazingly, the UN pushed for and enforced the boycott even though Mandela upon release from prison publicly declared his loyalty to and the ANC's alliance with the South African Communist
 Party 32.

 In the 1990's the UN disarmed anti-Communist forces in Nicaragua; imposed economic sanctions on Iraq for invading old Soviet friend Kuwait, hypocritically sent annual foodstuffs to communist North Korea, imposed a coalition government on Muslims with Communists in
Bosnia, opposed US sanctions against Cuba, indicted President Pinochet for his suppression and imprisonment of communists in Chile, and continues to support the right of Russia and China to suppress liberty in Chechnya and Taiwan.

 Truth 3: The UN is a Fraud, and Yet It Continues Unabated

 Soviet Dictator Vladimir Lenin in his work Imperialism and World Economy predicted a day of capitalistic imperialism wherein a "new social order" would be introduced which under the leadership of "a single world trust," would "swallow up all enterprises and all states
 without exception."

 Under this system, capitalism would move toward a mixture of private capital and social production (That form of socialism called fascism, or state monopoly capitalism). But before this melting of "economic, political, [and] national" systems finished its job of "world union," he predicted, "imperialism will inevitably explode, [and] capitalism will turn into its opposite [communism] 33."

 A dire prophecy, and one which should focus our attention on the real, more subtle communist threat in the world today - the United Nations.

Earl Browder, general secretary of the Communist Party USA admitted in his book Victory and After, that "the American Communists worked energetically and tirelessly to lay the foundations for the United Nations which we were sure would come into existence," and that, "the United Nations is the instrument for victory [the victory of communism] 34."

 But he was dreaming; I believe. Because too many Americans have woken up to the fact that they were lied to by their state run schools, by UN generated pamphlets, and by the ‘big liberal three'. These sensible and freedom loving Americans realize that we can do better in our goals to achieve peace and liberty than provide moral support, cash, and housing for such a sham for liberty and peace as the United Nations.

 Only one task remains. Convincing the political party, which has historically been the "public" enemy of socialism and communism and the most skeptical about the UN to tune into its membership and back up its big talk with genuine action and get US out of the United Nations.
 

 Steve Farrell is the former managing editor of Right Magazine and a new columnist at Newsmax. Please email your comments to Mr. Farrell at cyours76@aol.com

 Footnotes:

 27. See this authors article: The No Win Wars of Internationalism:
 Korea at http://www.usiap.org/viewpoints/natoseries/nato5.html
 28. Griffin, pp. 3-64
 29. UN Charter, Article 3. The UN has ignored this provision,
 preferring "universality ."
 30. This policy, based on UN Article 1, Verse 2's, respect for "self
 determination of peoples" has translated into the UN promotion of
 socialist revolutions where any minority or group of minorities can be
 identified and convinced that he or she is not fairly represented or
 treated. Self determination is not, however, looked upon by the UN as
 the right of free majorities, or laisee faire believing minorities.
 31. Somoza, Anastasio; and Cox, Jack. Nicaragua Betrayed (Western
 Islands, Boston MA, 1980) pp. 398-399.
 32. McAlvaney, Don. Revolution and Betrayal: The Accelerating
 Onslought Against South Africa (Appleton, WI, American Opinion
 Book Services) Video, see http://jbs.org/aobs/store/page102.html Visit
 www.mg.co.za/mg/news/mandela/pictures5.html - a pro Mandela site.
 And his 1990 salute to South African communist party, found at the
 official Mandela site www.mandela80.iafrica.com/home.htm. It reads "I
 salute the South African Communist Party for its sterling contribution to
 the struggle for democracy. You have survived 40 years of unrelenting
 persecution. The memory of great communists like Moses Kotane,
 Yusuf Dadoo, Bram Fischer and Moses Mabhida will be cherished for
 generations to come. I salute General Secretary Joe Slovo - one of our
 finest patriots. We are heartened by the fact that the alliance between
 ourselves [the ANC] and the Party [South African Communist Party]
 remains as strong as it always was."
 33. As quoted by William Z. Foster, founder of the Communist Party
 USA in a reprint of his 1932 work, Toward a Soviet America. The
 book was reprinted under the direction of the Committee on
 Un-American Activities (Balboa Island, CA, Elgin Publications, 1961)
 pp. 172, 269-270.
 34. Browder, Earl. Victory - And After (New York: International
 Publishers, 1942) pp. 110, 160, 169.

     The Washington Post reported today: "Ending a five-year decline in peacekeeping operations, the United Nations is gearing up for new missions from the Balkans to sub-Saharan Africa and the fringes of Asia, heightening the organization's importance but straining its finances. In addition to its mission in Kosovo, where it is setting up an      interim government and police force, the organization is now preparing to help end three wars in Africa and to conduct a referendum on independence in East Timor, the first step in what could be a major role in nation-building there. ‘These are tasks that no nation in the world would undertake and no other organization in the world would even try,’ said Carl Bildt, the United Nations's special envoy to the Balkans. ‘There will be failures along the way. But there will be even more of a guarantee of failure if no one does it.’..."