Profound Revolution Chapter 11 - War By Resolution
In the Rhodesian situation, which is OBVIOUSLY an United Nations "mandated" war, Britain occupies a most precarious position. The nation is opposed to war with a former colony—Britain has had enough war—she wants peace. She had agreed, under the Charter and other considerations, to give up her colonies and she has been doing it as fast as possible. Now she is directed by the United Nations to take dominion over a colony, in which she has had little, if any, authority during the past forty years.
The British people and their government know that South Africa and Portugal are both under U. N. sanctions and all three (including Rhodesia) for the same reason. They refuse to turn their peaceful and prosperous countries over to Black rule and South Africa and Portugal have been taking the side of Rhodesia. A war with Rhodesia now might—and probably would—find Britain facing a three-pronged war which she could not win, certainly without a great deal of "outside" help. Britain has asserted that she will not go to war with Rhodesia and the U. N. has decreed that unless Britain can "persuade" Rhodesia to comply with the U. N. decree, she will have to subdue Rhodesia, war or no war.
While Britain is pondering this problem and gazing wistfully across the Atlantic, the United States is engaged in a strange unexplained and unexplainable war in Viet-Nam. This war will remain unexplained and unexplainable until such time as the gag is removed from Congress and the Congress is permitted to EXPLAIN THE U. N. and SEATO.
Any high-school student can tell us that the United States is in Viet-Nam in violation of a dozen sections of the U. N. Charter. The high school students have never been told about the Staff Report of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate, they do not fully understand U. N. interpretation and the effect of General Assembly Resolutions. They seem to have completely overlooked Article 25:
"Member Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present charter."
The government in Washington says that we went into the war in Viet-Nam because the government of Diem asked us to help them fight "communism." Under the Charter, we could not legally intervene in the domestic affairs of Viet-Nam under any circumstances. The whole idea of the Charter, so it is said, is to have the Security Council decide about ACTS OF AGGRESSION and what shall be done about them. Therefore, if Diem had an aggressive problem it was up to the Security Council to take up the matter and adjust it.
On the other side of the coin, we have the SEATO Treaty to which we have subscribed. This "solemn commitment" provides for ONLY ONE WAY in which one signatory nation may take military action within the boundaries of another. That is by INVITATION and for the purpose of defending against "communist aggression." Both provisions of the SEATO Treaty were met when Diem "invited" us in. It is utterly ridiculous to say that we are not in Viet-Nam under the SEATO Treaty, as are other signatory and volunteer forces of the region.
What is SEATO? It is a regional agency of the United Nations. The Charter explains in Articles 53 and 54 how regional agencies work. These articles do not SAY regional agencies are PART OF THE U. N. in their own devious language the Charter's authors say the U. N. recognizes regional agencies. Then Article 53 states:
"The Security Council shall where appropriate UTILIZE such regional arrangements or agencies for NO ENFORCEMENT action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies WITHOUT THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL" (emphasis—ed.)
The President, the Secretary of State and other officials of government have admitted that we are in Viet-Nam in accordance with our "solemn commitments" under the SEATO Treaty. Indeed we are; we could not legally be there otherwise. We are NOT violating the U. N. Charter or whatever has replaced it. The United Nations has made an inspection of the situation and found nothing wrong in our presence there. The U. N. has approved it; therefore, we are there by "AUTHORITY OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL."
Next, let us consider Article 54. (This is the one the Washington government would like to forget about.) Article 54:
"The Security Council shall at all times be kept FULLY INFORMED of all activities undertaken or IN CONTEMPLATION under regional arrangements or by regional agencies for the maintenance of international peace and security."
The head of the Security Council, by agreement, is now, always has been and always will be a RUSSIAN or other SOVIET CITIZEN. The HEAD of the Council bears the confusing title, "Under-secretary of Political and Security Council Affairs,"—the SECRETARY of ALL the Secretarial posts being U. Thant. For the purpose of this discussion, it matters little who is head of the Security Council; the Russian Suslov represents one of the FIVE PERMANENT members and it would be absurd to claim that one of the Big Five does not receive and inspect reports of field operations undertaken and CONTEMPLATED.
The same situation prevailed during the Korean War when MacArthur was complaining that the enemy was receiving his instructions before he got them. The enemy obviously knew every move the great general would make and anticipated them With ghastly consequences to more than a HUNDRED THOUSAND young Americans. Now, in the thin trickle of information we get from Viet-Nam, we can discern the same bloody red hands pulling the same strings. Here we sit, idle, rendered helpless and unable to defend and protect our own, simply because we are not told the truth.
We have in our possession a letter from the Department of State, received by a young veteran, in reply to his inquiry as to whether or not we are reporting actions undertaken and in contemplation inViet-Nam, as required by Article 54 of the Charter. Here is the reply —names deleted for obvious reasons:
"Dear Congressman. . . .
"Thank you for your letter of September 8 concerning the question posed by . . . regarding the meeting of our obligations under Article 54 of the United Nations Charter with respect to Viet-Nam.
"The Government of the United States has informed the Security Council promptly and fully of all of our major activities in Viet-Nam. Reporting on the conflict by the press has been comprehensive and complete, obviating any necessity to inform the United Nations on a day to day basis. If I may be of any further assistance to you, please let me know.
Yours sincerely, (signed) Douglas MacArthur, II
Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations
The bit about the comprehensive and complete reporting of the conflict by the PRESS may be a little hard to swallow, but we become accustomed to such hokum in time.
"We" had been in Viet-Nam for one reason or another, depending on which newspaper one reads or which day it was, for nearly ten years, during which time, Congress, by their own confession, did not know what we were doing there or who had sent us there. A responsible citizenry would have been demanding that Congress find out what was going on before appropriating any more money. The uninformed People, however, did not have sufficient information to raise even this objection or to make appropriate demands upon Congress - and so we ALL just drift with the Red Tide.
The Government was running out of "explanations." They had to find some reason for the military operation in which they were engaged. Finally, on August 6th, 1964, a most providential "attack" was made against one of our cruisers. Three little "communist" PT boats actually fired shots at our giant cruiser. The affair was somewhat reminiscent of Pearl Harbor, even though we experienced no casualties. In other ways, it reminds us of Korea, where the North Koreans and Red Chinese KNEW they could shoot up our troops and the young Americans and their gallant commanders could not return the fire. There is something passing strange about the "courage" of these little nobodys shooting up the Army and Navy of the United States.
At any rate, now we had been "attacked," we had a cause to declare war on the North Vietnamese. What happened? Did the Congress declare war or did they not? You be the judge. Apparently they do not know what they did, not if we are to believe what they said.
A little State Department booklet entitled, "Viet Nam, The Struggle For Freedom," reports on page 2:
"On August 7th (the day after the "attack" —ed.) the House of Representatives in joint resolution supported and approved the measures taken by the President to repel armed attack against U. S forces and to prevent further aggression. The resolution then added:
"The United States regards as vital to its national interest and to world peace the maintenance of international peace and security in Southeast Asia. Consonant with the Constitution of the United States and the CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS and in accordance with its OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE SOUTHEAST ASIA COLLECTIVE DEFENSE TREATY (SEATO--ed.), the United States is therefore prepared as the President determines, to take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol State of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in defense of its freedom."
By the terms of the Charter, ONLY the Security Council can authorize military action under the SEATO Treaty. The question now is, was the Congress, or such segment of the Congress as was PRESENT when this resolution was adopted, IMPLEMENTING something ordered by the Security Council or just trying to get the Administration off the hook? It might be said that this proclamation was as close as Congress can come to a declaration of war or invoking the SEATO Treaty. Whether they declare war or not, this will be a United Nations war for the simple reason that a U. N. war is the ONLY KIND of war which can be fought by a Member State. All activities undertaken, or in contemplation, will be "promptly and fully" reported to the Security Council, as affirmed by the State Department in the letter quoted above, where the Russian Suslov will have free access to them. This is the way the U. N. fights "communism," and this is what we can expect in the future as the U. N. moves inexorably to bring us to our knees in THEIR World Empire.
Click here for our mailing list sign-up page.
