Stepping stones to convergence: the recent arms-reduction treaty with Russia and Russia's entry into NATO are two more steps on the road to the new world order. (Russia).

On May 24th, President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin met in Moscow and agreed to an arms reduction treaty. Less than a week later, on May 28th, the two met again in Rome where Russia was welcomed into NATO, not as a full participant but as a member of a new NATO-Russia Council (NRC). However, neither chief executive cared to mention that these two steps fit precisely into long-standing plans for the UN to dominate the world.

In mid-May, senior Bush administration officials announced that an agreement had been reached with the Putin government to "our nuclear forces to between 1,700 and 2,000 operationally deployed nuclear warheads" over the next 10 years. An unnamed White House official happily reported that "we have put behind us the notion that Russia is our enemy, and that we need to structure our forces based on how the Russians structure theirs."

Implicit in all of the self-congratulatory comments from administration officials is the trust they place in our "strategic partner" -- the Russian government headed by President Putin. But Putin and his comrades are drawn from the criminal oligarchy responsible for inflicting decades of tyranny and terror on the long-suffering Russian people; they are also the architects of the world terrorist network.

Same Old KGB 

Ironically, Zbigniew Brzezinski, a globalist who supports merging "post-Soviet" Russia with the U.S. and NATO, accurately described Putin's regime. Writing in the Fall 2000 issue of The National Interest, shortly after Putin was appointed to succeed Yeltsin, Brzezinski noted: "President Vladimir Putin's new team is composed of individuals who, with no exception, could now be serving in the higher echelons of the Soviet government (particularly the KGB) if the Soviet Union still existed."

Putin himself spent a career as a KGB agent tyrannizing his own countrymen and spreading terror and subversion throughout the world. The son of a commando in Stalin's NKVD, he remained one of the Communist world's chief criminals when the KGB became the FSB. As noted in THE NEW AMERICAN for April 8th, Putin boasted soon after being named prime minister that a group of KGB veterans of which he was a part was "dispatched to work undercover in government" and has "successfully completed its first mission." In other words, the KGB had taken over the Russian government.

Space precludes detailing the history of the crimes of the numerous versions of the Soviet secret police. In a saner world, anyone connected to either the KGB, its many predecessors such as the NKVD, or the new FSB, would be considered an archcriminal. But the same U.S. government that continues to pursue 90-year-old exNazi corporals has chosen to ignore the monstrous crimes committed by Putin and the members of his government. And these are the very individuals with whom National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice says we should proudly sign agreements because of our "increasingly common interests and mutual trust."

This inconsistency ought to set off alarm bells. When the revelations of Anatoliy Golitsyn, perhaps the most important defector ever to come out of the Soviet Union, are added to this mix, alarm bells ought to get louder. Among his many correct predictions, Golitsyn warned the U.S. 40 years ago that the USSR would undergo a "spectacular and impressive" reorganization, a change he labeled "false liberalization." He urged the West not to allow itself to be disarmed either psychologically or militarily. More recent emigres from Russia have tried to send a similar message.

The arms control treaty signed by presidents Bush and Putin reduces the number of nuclear weapons on each side by two-thirds over the next 10 years. In his criticisms of this pact, national security expert David T. Pyne claims that it amounts to "another in a series of major U.S. concessions to reward Putin" for assisting Afghanistan's Northern Alliance in defeating the Taliban government.

Pyne further reports that the U.S. and Russia have agreed to cooperate on a joint missile defense program. He points out that Bush has assured the Russians that "the planned missile defense system will be of a limited nature and will not be effective or capable of defending the U.S. from a hypothetical attack by Russian nuclear missiles."

The first task of our nation's government is to defend it. When Bush announced that the U.S. was withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty, many of his conservative supporters hailed this step as proof that Bush was committed to defending our nation from a nuclear missile attack. But this positive step was immediately nullified by the president's assurances to Russia that he will work to keep our nation vulnerable to such an attack. Furthermore, the joint declaration signed by Presidents Bush and Putin on May 24th announces that the U.S. and Russia will "study possible areas for missile defense cooperation," including "joint research and development of technologies," mutual observation of missile defense tests, and so on.

The text of the May 24th joint declaration places the "new strategic relationship" between the U.S. and Russia squarely in the context of our "obligations under international law, including the UN Charter." Article V of the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty signed on the same date observes that the treaty "shall be registered pursuant to Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations"; similar wording has been incorporated in every arms control agreement between the U.S. and Russia. These facts underscore a little-appreciated reality: Every arms control agreement, and every move undertaken to merge the U.S. and Russia, fits nicely into plans laid out many years ago for an all-powerful, UN-dominated world government.

Freedom From War

In 1961, the Kennedy administration unveiled Freedom From War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World. A long-range program ending with the UN possessing a monopoly of weapons, its successive steps call for both the U.S. and the USSR to progressively reduce armaments. A pertinent portion of this document reads: "Stocks of nuclear weapons shall be progressively reduced to the minimum levels which can be agreed upon...." That, of course, describes this new treaty.

Almost simultaneously with the Freedom From War proclamation the same Kennedyera State Department commissioned MIT professor Lincoln P. Bloomfield to produce a comprehensive plan entitled "A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations." The goal then, and unfortunately the goal of our leaders ever since, was to create conditions that will enable the UN to become a global dictatorship.

In 1961, Professor Bloomfield pointed to a seemingly insurmountable problem facing those who, like him and the State Department officials who financed his report, wanted the world in the UN's grip. How could the monopolistic "world government" he favored include such diametrically opposed systems as the United States and the Soviet Union? He was concerned that his overall goal might not be achievable because fear of Soviet power was needed to provide the West with an "incentive" for a UN-controlled world. Those concerns have largely been swept away by the Golitsyn-predicted "false liberalization" in Russia, the elder George Bush's success in creating a "reinvigorated" UN, and the steady stream of propaganda about the need to do away with nuclear weapons.

The goals of Freedom From War and the Bloomfield plan are being implemented by pacts such as the one just signed in Moscow. Nor should the second of Bush's recent moves, the welcoming of Russia into a newly created division of NATO, be seen as any thing other than another step toward the world government desired by our nation's internal enemies.

Formed in 1949, NATO's most significant promoter was Secretary of State Dean Acheson. He openly stated at the time that the alliance drew its legitimacy from "Article 51 of the United Nations Charter" and that all "provisions of the pact are subject to the overriding provisions of the United Nations Charter." The NATO treaty, consisting of a preamble and 14 short articles, mentions the UN five times.

An unabashed champion of the UN, Acheson delighted in reporting that the NATO treaty he favored was "an essential measure for strengthening the United Nations." He recognized that any form of regional government under the UN would usurp national independence while it enhanced the power of the world body. But the American people were led to believe that NATO's sole purpose was to prevent any expansion to the West by the USSR.

With the passing of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact a decade ago, NATO's military purpose evaporated. But Secretary of State Colin Powell told the press in Rome on May 28th, "NATO was originally created for a political purpose." Though he didn't expound on his remark, NATO's political purpose -- "strengthening the United Nations" -- was proclaimed at the alliance's creation by Dean Acheson.

Seconding Powell's remarks, Bush stated at the opening session of the new NATO-Russian Council held in Rome that the new arrangement "offers Russia a path toward forming an alliance with the alliance."

Instead of all this diplomatic and military duplicity, our nation should disentangle itself from the UN, NATO, and all such alliances including economic and trade pacts. We should remain militarily strong enough to prevent attack, bring our troops home from policing the world, and mind our own business. If that were our nation's policy, the threat of terrorism would evaporate dramatically if not completely. And the greater threat of a UN-dominated world would disappear.