NATO is a UN Branch Office: Another Reason to WithdrawPosted: May 14, 2014
NATO is a UN Branch Office: Another Reason to Withdraw
By JBS President John F. McManus
In his recent article where alternatives for a U.S. response to Russia’s designs on Ukraine were discussed, a conservative commentator who calls for “nonintervention” by our nation nevertheless stated, “NATO is outdated and unnecessary.” Obviously, this individual knows little about how NATO came to be, what its chief creators sought, and how it has been used over the years to do the work of its UN parent. So, let’s provide a little history along with reasons why the U.S. should disentangle itself from the pact.
At the close of World War I, President Wilson labored mightily to insert the U.S. into the world government known as the League of Nations. But the Senate refused ratification. The Wilson plan was actually the brainchild of his top adviser, Edward Mandell House, a behind-the-scenes powerbroker who had called for “Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx.” A disappointed House and his disciples, John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, Christian Herter and others, licked their wounds and decided to form a new organization to promote a world government. Their creation, formed during 1919-1921, is the New York City-based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), frequently and correctly identified as the “seat of the world-government-promoting Eastern Establishment.”
In 1945, more than 40 CFR members could be found in the U.S. delegation to the UN’s founding conference. They got their wish when the U.S. Senate approved the UN Charter and our nation became an initial member of the newest world government organization. John Foster Dulles and other disciples of Edward Mandell House (who died in 1938) led the way. Of note is the Charter’s Article 52-54 that gave authority for groups of nations to form “Regional Arrangement” to carry out UN designs.
In 1949 the U.S. Senate – spurred on by Dulles and other and other CFR members – created the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Then-Secretary of State Dean Acheson (a CFR member) championed NATO when on July 8, 1949, he told senators considering U.S. membership that it was “subject to the overriding provisions of the United Nations Charter” and was “an essential measure for strengthening the United Nations.”
One year later war broke out in Korea. The UN decided to respond. Asked how he could send U.S. forces into a UN-led war without the congressional declaration required by the Constitution, President Truman responded: “We are not at war; this is a police action.” He added that, if he could send troops to NATO which he had done, he could send troops to the UN-authorized war in Korea.
In 1954 while serving as Secretary of State and copying the precedent that launched NATO, John Foster Dulles organized the formation of SEATO (Southeast Asia Treaty Organization). It was under SEATO that U.S. forces fought for years in Vietnam with one hand tied behind their backs. President Lyndon Johnson repeatedly confirmed that SEATO was the overall director of the effort. Having no more need for SEATO after Vietnam, it was dissolved. But NATO grew from 12 original member nations in 1949 to 28 today. Led since March 2014 by Jens Stoltenberg of Norway (the successor of Denmark’s Anders Fogh Rasmussen), NATO is no less a creature of the United Nations. And NATO, as most are aware, has been the director of actions in Afghanistan for years.
Much more can be written about NATO to show that it is hardly “outdated and unnecessary.” Calls for NATO to act in Syria, Ukraine, and elsewhere continue. All decisions to respond anywhere with military force or even threats of force will be made, not by Americans even if our nation’s might and personnel are employed, but by the UN’s NATO “regional arrangement.”
A much-needed approach to all of this would have the U.S. withdraw from NATO and its parent United Nations. But with the Obama administration led by CFR members (notably Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel), what’s best for our nation will take second place to the plans of those who are building the New World Order’s world government.