Monthly Archives: October 1995

Remember Katanga!

by ,

Fifty years ago today, the life work of Alger Hiss came to fruition. Hiss, a US State Department official, served the United Nations as its acting Secretary General during its founding conference in the spring of 1945. On October 24, 1945 the United Nations Charter became effective as a majority of the countries that had signed it ratified their signatures. Several years later, Hiss went to a federal penitentiary for committing perjury when testifying that he was not a Soviet agent. His personal career was over, but his most important work, the United Nations, lived on.

Globalists everywhere are today citing the “accomplishments” of the United Nations during its 50-year life. One of the feats accredited to the UN was the reunification of the Belgian Congo by a UN “peacekeeping” force. Since most of the people I talk to have never heard of this piece of history, it seems appropriate to review it on this anniversary.

The tragedy of Katanga started on June 30, 1960 when Belgium granted independence to its former province of the Congo. Leadership of the new nation fell to Moscow-sponsored terrorist Patrice Lumumba. Lumumba was so highly regarded by Soviet dictator Khrushchev that he renamed the Moscow “Peoples Friendship University” the “Patrice Lumumba Friendship University” upon Lumumba’s death. In a directive to the heads of the Congolese provinces, Lumumba wrote that they should use “terrorism, essential to subdue the population.” His directive was carried out enthusiastically.

In order to avoid the nightmare that attended Communist rule in the Congo, the province of Katanga declared its independence. Its president, the Christian, pro-American Moise Tshombe, announced that “we are seceding from chaos.” Tshombe asked Belgium to send military officers to recruit and train a Katangese army to restore order in Katanga. Lumumba and his successor, Cyrille Adoula, asked for and got the aid of United Nations “peacekeepers” to force Katanga back under Congolese rule. It took two years of UN warmaking to accomplish this goal.

The troops transported to Katanga using US Air Force aircraft came from Ireland, Sweden, Italy, Ethiopia, and India. According to numerous eyewitness accounts, the troops of the UN’s Operation Morthor carried on one of the most brutal military campaigns of our century. In their 1962 report, 46 Angry Men, the 46 civilian doctors of Elizabethville, Katanga denounced the atrocities carried out by UN troops.

According to the doctors, the UN consistently bombed, machine-gunned, and looted civilian targets: hospitals, ambulances, churches, schools, homes, cars. “Over ninety percent of the buildings bombed and shelled by the United Nations were strictly civilian structures with no military value,” said the doctors’ report. After protesting the UN attacks on ambulances, Mr. Georges Olivet of the Swiss Red Cross was murdered by UN troops as he traveled in a Red Cross ambulance.

Worse yet, if possible, was the behavior of Congolese troops supplied and transported by the UN to invade Katanga from the north. Reports of cannibalism, massacre of missionaries and other civilians, and other atrocities were rife. The passage of these UN allies left in its wake complete anarchy in place of the peace and prosperity that had formerly prevailed in that region.

Before and during the two-year UN war against Katanga, the UN insisted that its troops had orders not to interfere with the internal affairs of the Congo or Katanga. Globalists in the Kennedy administration cooperated fully with this propaganda. The whole operation was sold to the American people as necessary to prevent the Congo from “going Communist.”

With such a legacy, the UN-boosters in and out of government ought to lie low on this fiftieth United Nations Day. They ought to be hoping that we would forget that we have been inflicted with fifty years of the UN. Instead, they are celebrating the UN’s birthday from sea to shining sea. They are openly talking about increasing the ability of the United Nations to conduct “peacekeeping” operations. There is even serious talk among them of giving the UN some powers of taxation. When will we begin to learn from history?

Clinton’s Promises Should Not Bind Congress

by ,

The hottest topic in national affairs as we approach the end of the year is President Clinton’s promised intervention in Bosnia. Clinton has arranged for all sides in the region to agree on a peace treaty, promising that US military forces will be available to enforce the treaty. While most Americans and many in Congress oppose our involvement, the President claims that his promise is binding on us all, and that he will follow through no matter what Congress does.

Anyone who reads the newspapers knows by now that there has been ethnic hatred and violence in and around Bosnia for hundreds of years. The current outbreak results from the ending of several decades of repression by the Communist government of Yugoslavia. As long as Yugoslavia existed, the dictator Tito did everything possible to eliminate the several national identities. Naturally, with this influence gone, all groups would make up for lost time in rebuilding their national identities and consolidating some territory for themselves. Nothing on earth short of another period of military repression could prevent this process even temporarily.

The traditional American stance of neutrality, and the principle of national self-determination, call for us to do nothing to aid one side or the other. Instead of following this wise course, our government has participated in the outrageous arms embargo against the Bosnian government. When this policy predictably contributed to the military successes of the Serbs, Clinton used that result as an excuse for more direct intervention.

President Clinton’s plan seems to be to place our troops in the crossfire between the hostile camps and dare them to start a fight. The Commander in Chief will naturally be several thousand miles away at the time. When the inevitable happens in spite of the vaunted peace treaty, Clinton and NATO will have the excuse needed to begin the process of “pacifying” the warring parties by force. If that is successful, the President and his globalist friends will indulge themselves in socially re-engineering whatever is left of Bosnia.

As I write this, the administration has just increased the projected number of troops from 20,000 to 38,000. The predicted cost has risen in recent days from $1.2 billion to $2 billion. The original estimate of a one year troop deployment has been called optimistic by members of the administration itself. In short, we are well on the way to doubling the potential costs of this action before any troops even get on their transport aircraft. Doubling in a few weeks is a rate of growth that rivals anything seen in Clinton’s nemesis, the Viet Nam conflict.

When America sends troops into combat, it should be because the property, lives, or freedoms of those troops and their families and countrymen are endangered. That is not the case in Bosnia. It is also not the case in hundreds of other regions of the world, in which ancient ethnic hatreds periodically flare into violence. If we accept Clinton’s definition of American “leadership,” we will find our military intervening in every conceivable conflict.

Globalists in Congress, including 9th District Rep. Lee Hamilton, are predictably cheering on Clinton’s adventurism. Most of the Republicans in Congress at least appear to oppose it. Like Brer Rabbit confronted with the threat of being thrown into the briar patch, the Republican leadership has given only lip service to non-intervention. They maintain that they personally oppose intervention, but must be bound by the promises made by the President.

Since when are the promises of the executive branch binding on the US Congress? Even a promise made formal by the signing of a treaty between our country and another must be ratified by the Senate before it can take effect. If the President makes a reckless promise that commits America to spend the blood and money of our citizens without a threat to our national security, it is the duty of Congress to quash it.

Obviously, Dole and Gingrich plan to make political hay of whatever disaster results from their support of Clinton. They will point out that they were forced by their statesmanlike concern for the prestige of the presidency to agree to a plan that they didn’t really believe in. Let’s hope that the American people will hold accountable all members of Congress who make possible our intervention in Bosnia.

Two Body Blows to the United Nations

by ,

The more Americans learn about globalism in general and the United Nations in particular, the more disaffected they become. This public attitude is being reflected among our representatives in Congress. Two bills that have recently been introduced in the House of Representatives illustrate this trend.

In recent months, many Americans have become aware of the plight of US Army medic Michael New. As reported previously in this column, New has refused to wear the insignia or headgear of the United Nations as part of his uniform. He will soon face a court martial for “disobeying a lawful order.”

Several members of Congress have introduced a bill to reinforce the right of servicemen to acknowledge allegiance only to the United States and its Constitution. HR 2540 is entitled “To amend title 10, United States Code, to prohibit any member of the Armed Forces from being required to wear as part of the military uniform any indicia or insignia of the United Nations.”

The body of the bill consists of the following statement: “No member of the armed forces may be required to wear as part of the uniform any badge, symbol, helmet, headgear, or other visible indicia or insignia which indicates (or tends to indicate) any allegiance or affiliation to or with the United Nations.” HR 2540 was introduced to the House by Representative Tom DeLay (R. Texas) and cosponsored by ten others. It has been referred to the Committee on National Security.

HR 2540 would protect servicemen like Michael New who take seriously their oaths to defend the Constitution of the United States. It would also send the message that Americans repudiate the policy of gradually converting our military into a mercenary force for the UN Security Council.

A more general and direct attack on the UN may be seen in the “United Nations Withdrawal Act,” HR 2535. This bill was introduced by Representative Joe Scarborough (R. Florida) and six others on October 24, the day that globalists celebrate as UN Day. It has been referred to the House Committee on International Relations.

The withdrawal bill would repeal three laws: the United Nations Participation Act, the United Nations Headquarters Agreement Act, and the UNESCO Participation Act. Withdrawal from the UN would take place over a period of four years, with one quarter of the funding being removed from the budget during each of the four years.

Removing our nation from the UN would provide many benefits. It would start reversing the movement toward world government. It would remove the subversive influence of UNESCO on education in America. It would help to erase the shame of our association with such UN actions as the subjugation of Katanga. It would make it increasingly unlikely that our presidents would propose intervening in wars all over the world. It would even remove from our soil the hundreds of scofflaws who abuse their UN diplomatic immunity everywhere they go.

Each of us who values American independence should give our spirited support to both of these House bills. The Senate should consider similar bills as well. Ten minutes used to write or phone two Senators and one Representative would be time well spent.