FIFTY YEARS OF LIES
Part I

"No government is respectable which is not just.-Without unspotted purity of public faith, without sacred public principle, fidelity, and honor, no machinery of laws, can give dignity to political society."

I. The U.N. Plan for Global Taxes

Boutros-Ghali Endorses Global Tax

Confirming a report that was published in the first edition of The ASAP Report (May 1995), U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Gliali finally acknowledged that the U.N. is pursuing several variations of a global tax and that he fully supports them. In an interview with the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), aired on January 14, 1996, the Egyptian bureaucrat called for a "light international tax," possibly on airline travel or postal items, to finance the U.N.

These explosive comments confirmed everything that ASAP had been warning about for months. At the time, some liberals thought it was laughable that the U.N. would be seriously considering such plans.

But Boutros-Ghali's remarks prove that these proposals have been under active consideration at the very highest levels of the U.N. And they also provide evidence that the U.N. is seeking to become a world government.

In the words of Boutros-Ghali, this taxing power would provide the U.N. with "independence." He said, "I will not be under the daily financial will of the Member States."

Asked if he thought he would succeed in getting the power to tax, he replied, "It takes time. I am sure that we will win in the end and that we will obtain from the international community [recognition] that we need to have our own income."


Big Bucks

One day later, in a lecture at Oxford University in England, Boutros-Ghali went into more detail. In order for the U.N. to "operate on a secure and steady independent financial foundation," he proposed "measures for consideration," including:

"a fee on speculative international financial transactions, a levy on fossil fuel use (or its resulting pollution); earmarkng a small portion of the anticipated decline in world military expenditures, utilizing some resources released by the elimination of unnecessary subsidies; resources generated by a stamp tax on international travel and travel documents, or a levy on global currency transactions."

Boutros-Ghaii added, "finding the right formula will be a project of vast importance for the future of the international community. It will be the role of the Secretary General to bring this project to successful fruition in the twenty first century."

But whether Boutros-Ghali will play that role is subject to much dispute. U.N. insiders acknowledged that Bout-ros-Ghaii had made a major gaffe by talking openly about these schemes. His term will expire at the end of this year if he doesn't resign before then. His endorsement of global taxes came just before the U.N. went through another period during which "reforms" were promised to clean the place up.

The tax comments, published in the Washington Times, enraged Capitol Hill politicians, who had wanted to pretend that the global tax threat was a kooky idea nobody took seriously. Once Boutros-Ghaii embraced the scheme, they felt they had to respond. Legislation was immediately introduced in both Houses of Congress to de-fund the U.N. if it went forward with advocating or implementing international taxes.

On the Senate side, then-Majority Leader Bob Dole said it appeared that Boutros-Ghali "wants to head up an international Internal Revenue Service."


Investigation Planned

Senators Dole, Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) and Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) wrote to the General Accounting Office asking for a complete investigation of the U.N. schemes and who was behind them.

The talk was so embarrassing that even the Clinton Administration felt obliged to denounce the idea of global taxes. "We prefer to stick with the present system where member states make their own contributions to the United Nations," declared State Department spokesman Nicholas Bums.

But the Administration was being deceptive. As The ASAP Report documented, one of Clinton's appointees to the U.N., James Gustave Speth of the U.N. Development Program, has been one of the masterminds behind the proposals. He should be one of the first witnesses when and if Congress holds hearings on the issue.


U.N. on the Chopping Block

Supporters of the U.N. are deathly afraid that Congressional Republicans are going to reduce U.S. funding for the U.N. A pro-U.N. group called the American Assembly has just published a report complaining that a "U.S. fiscal hammer is poised to... smash" the U.N. system and that "The United States is, in fact, in danger of drifting out of the United Nations."

The main problem is that, with a $5 trillion deficit, we simply can't afford the U.N. anymore. When America's senior citizens are looking at cuts in Medicare, why should international bureaucrats at the U.N. continue to drain the U.S. treasury?

Committed to balancing the federal budget by the year 2002, Congressional Republicans have, indeed, targeted the U.N. However, the proposals fall short of what the American Sovereignty Action Project would like to see. And Bill Clinton has specifically promised to veto any Congressional measure that tries to limit U.S. funding for U.N. peacekeeping activities.

Senator Helms, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has come up with one proposal for U.N. reform, delivered to Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici (R-N.M.).

Besides endorsing limits on U.S. funding for U.N. peacekeeping, Helms advocates termination of funding or U.S. withdrawal from 6 organizations associated with the U.N. These are the International Labor Organization, the U.N. Industrial Development Association, the Inter-American Indian Institute, the South Pacific Commission, the Pan American Railway Congress Association, and the Interparliamentary Union.

It is not really clear what some of these organizations do. But they are part of the highly complex U.N. bureaucracy of literally hundreds of committees, commissions and agencies. The U.N. today employs 52,000 people, with 4,800 of them in New York. The U.N. was the target of a 1993 CBS "60 Minutes" broadcast which estimated waste at the world body at hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

Helms advocates terminating or greatly reducing U.S. participation in "most" U.N. programs, actions which would save $200 million annually. Of these, the most significant are the U.N. Development Program (UNDP), the agency that openly advocates global taxes and world goverrunent, and the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA), the agency that subsidizes Communist China's brutal one-child per family program.

The U.S. contributes $118 million a year to the UNDP and $55 million to the UNFPA.

The UNFPA's involvement in Communist China's population control program of forced abortion and forced sterilization continues to cause grave concern. Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) recently demanded that the Clinton Administration investigate reports that the Communist Chinese regime is now selling aborted human fetuses as health food. Sen. Helms presided over hearings of his Senate Foreign Relations Committee on China's trafficking in the human organs of recently executed prisoners.


II. The U.N. and Terrorism

The bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City was horrible enough without one prominent commentator trying to transform the incident into a demand for the United States to give up its sovereignty. But that is exactly what a senior fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Jessica Mathews, did in a column in The Washington Post. Mathews tried to connect the Oklahoma bombing to the gas attacks in Japan, saying the nations of the world are vulnerable to a "rising wave of international crime" that is "a profound challenge to national sovereignty."

It is important to bear in mind who Mathews represents. She speaks for an organization whose president, Leslie Gelb, has declared, "The very long process of shaping a more effective and responsible United Nations must begin. This will require some sacrifices of sovereignty." Gelb seems oblivious to the fact that the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence were designed to affirm and preserve American sovereignty.

Not surprisingly, Mathews relied on the U.N. for some of her information, citing U.N. figures showing that "globalized crime" is a $750 billion a year business. The U.N. has already decided to get involved in a big way in finding a "global solution" to this "global problem."

Mathews then offered her answer: "Controlling it [global crime] will require both an extremely difficult pooling of sovereignty across borders and an unprecedented degree of cooperation between governments and the private sector."

A "pooling of sovereignty?" This strangely-worded proposal is nothing less than a demand for the U.S. to sacrifice its decision-making power as a sovereign nation-state to the U.N. or some other international bureaucracy, all in the name of fighting crime.

Mathews concluded: "Some good will be wrested from the evil of these recent tragedies if they build the public support for the much bigger changes still ahead."

But those "bigger changes," if they involve working through the U.N., are a prescription for even more disaster. The U.N. is well-known as a base for spies, terrorists and thugs from a variety of foreign countries. It would be a mistake of historic proportions for the Clinton Administration to force federal law enforcement authorities to cooperate and even hand over classified information to the U.N.

The Washington Post reported that the group of radical Muslims accused of plotting the "war of urban terrorism" in the U.S. that included the 1993 World Trade Center bombing had contacts in the U.N. who were prepared "to let them inside with a bomb." It was unclear who the intended targets of a bombing inside the U.N. might be.

In another terrorist-related matter, the Administration belatedly acted in the case of two Cuban U.N. "diplomats" who were caught red-handed assaulting New York City police.

The Cuban "diplomats" were personal representatives of Communist dictator Fidel Castro, who has long enjoyed the adoration of the U.N. despite his involvement in terrorism, subversion, drug trafficking and other evils. Demonstrating that the U.N. remains implacably hostile to U.S. interests, the world body in December 1994 voted 101 to 2 to direct the U.S. to lift our economic embargo of Cuba.

Like Yasser Arafat of the PLO, Castro is loved by the U.N. Castro was the featured speaker at the March 1995 World Summit for Social Development in Copenhagen, Denmark, where he griped about the "criminal blockade" of Cuba and tore into what one Communist journalist called the "imperialist governments" - the U.S. foremost among them.

Fortunately, President Clinton has thus far not followed the advice of National Security Council staffer Morton Halperin, who has advocated accommodating the U.N. and lifting the embargo. But Secretary of State Warren Christopher and National Security Adviser Anthony Lake have also been reported to favor a weakening of the trade ban.

The expulsion of the two Cuban "diplomats," Edmundo Suarez Hernandez, the fourth-ranking official in the Cuban U.N. mission, and Saul Hermida Griego, a lower-level official, stems from an incident August 30, 1994, when anti-Castro protesters chained themselves to the gate of the Cuban mission, located about IO blocks from the main U.N. headquarters. Rather than allow New York City police to handle the incident, the Cuban U.N. "diplomats" intervened in the affair, attacking the police themselves!

The New York District Attorney accused the Cuban Communists of "riot in the first degree and obstruction of government in the second degree," while another Cuban official, who apparently left the U.S. on his own, was accused of "attempted assault in the second degree."


III. Axis Powers Rise Again

In 1995, The United States and its allies celebrate V-E Day in Europe - the victory over the German Nazis - and V-J Day (renamed Victory in the Pacific by the Clinton Administration) - the victory over the Imperial Japanese. But memories of our military victories over 5O years ago should not obscure the fact that Germany and Japan have today re-claimed much of the power they lost and that they are not acting like the "allies" they claim to be.

In fact, it can be argued that with Castro is a the U.S. government's acquiescence, the U.N., Germany and Japan are preparing to dominate the world, perhaps through the U.N.

Unknown to most Americans, the Clinton administration is pushing a dangerous scheme to give permanent seats on the U.N. Security Council to Germany and Japan. This would further dilute American influence in a body which is already viciously anti-American.

In broader terms, Clinton has gone so far as to urge that Germany, which reunified in 1990, make a "more aggressive effort" to solve Europe's problems. Some believe that Germany is working, as it did in the past, to dominate an alliance of European nations.


Return of the Reich

As part of this effort, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl in 1992 met with former U.N. Secretary General and Austrian President Kurt Waldheim, who was a Nazi lieutenant in World War II. The meeting led to talk about another "Anschluss," or union between Germany and Austria, patterned on Hitler's 1938 annexation of Austria that was applauded by many Austrians at the time. Many Austrian soldiers served as Nazi troops and officers.

It's true that there has been a "de-Nazification" program going on in Germany. Yet the neo-Nazi movement continues to grow, attracting growing strength throughout Germany. Equally significant, the effort to "de-communize" the former East Germany was stopped dead in its tracks in June when Germany's highest court ruled that Markus Wolf, former head of the East German spy agency, cannot be prosecuted for espionage activities. The court decision means former East German intelligence agents, in collaboration with their Russian comrades, may be able to continue their subversive activities.

All of this raises the spectacle of another German-Russian alliance, the kind that provoked World War II.

Writing in the February 1995 issue of Chronicles, Ralph De Toledano discussed the "spasmodic, usually covert, relationship between Russia and Germany [that] has existed throughout modern history," with the notable exception of Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union (after the Hitler-Stalin Pact of 1939), and which is now being revived under Russian President Boris Yeltsin.

Meanwhile, Germany is consolidating its power in the European Union and working to dominate the U.N. by getting that permanent seat on the Security Council. In June 1994, Kohl's Foreign Minister, KJaus Kinkel, said that "Germany advocates the strengthening of all U.N. bodies," and that "Germany wants to and will be a driving force in efforts to strengthen the United Nations."


German Troops

Many Americans are not aware that Germany today has an armed forces of about 300,000, and that German soldiers have participated in U.N. peacekeeping missions in Cambodia and Somalia. U.S. News & World Report said, "A recent study commissioned by the German Defense Ministry showed that 85 percent of Germans believe the country needs its own army, and 69 percent want to see that army serve in U.N. peacekeeping operations."

A July 31, 1992 article in the Chicago Tribune on this subject carried the ominous headline: "German Military Taking Its Place in the New World Order."

As far as Japan is concerned, many Americans are justifiably outraged by Japan's predatory trade practices, which have decimated America's manufacturing base and eliminated many good-paying jobs. But it would be a mistake to think that President Clinton, who has threatened trade sanctions against Tokyo over automobile imports, is sincere about changing this situation in any significant way. Indeed, some analysts think Clinton's threat is ultimately designed to get the problem tossed into the World Trade Organization, a foreign-dominated body which would likely rule against America.

A key problem is the failure by both political parties to protect our manufacturing base. This is not a problem in Japan. A recent Business Week article on "Japan's New Identity" points out: "...unlike U.S. multinationals that started moving production overseas years ago, often to independent suppliers, Japanese companies are maintaining total control and keeping fabrication of all strategic products at home."


Selling Out Sovereignty

The book Selling Our Security.- The Erosion of America's Assets by Martin and Susan J. Tolchin documents that because of these trends, the U.S. now has to rely on foreign countries like Germany and Japan for technologies vital to our defense establishment. In fact, the authors note that without German and Japanese hardware, the U.S. military couldn't have waged its high-tech war against Saddam Hussein.

In those economic areas where the U.S. is still superior or competitive, our "allies" are engaging in industrial espionage against us. The book Friends, Spies by Peter Schweitzer describes how intelligence agents of foreign countries such as Germany and Japan have been deployed to steal our industrial secrets, costing U.S. industry $100 biIlion a year.

The destruction of the U.S. manufacturing base, reflected in massive U.S. trade deficits, has meant the literal transfer of hundreds of millions of dollars abroad, especially to Japan. The result: Nine of the top ten banks in the world, in terms of assets, are Japanese. By contrast, the biggest American bank, Citicorp, is number 29 on the list.

To be sure, there are some "experts" who claim that Japan is declining economically. But James Fallows, author of the book Looking at the Sun, says that although Japanese financial markets are in terrible shape and Japanese investments in U.S. real estate have been a disaster, their country is fundamentally in better shape than most, including the U.S., because of their high savings and investment rates.

According to the Council on Competitiveness, the U.S. net national savings rate in 1993 was the lowest of the G-7 industrial countries. Japan's savings rate was almost ten times as large as the U.S. rate and Germany's was three times larger. In terms of the long-term real growth in standard of living, during the period 1973-1993, Japan was first among the G-7, Germany was third, and the U.S. was last.


IV. The U.N.'s Illegal Bosnia Tribunal

No matter where you turn in the media, you find articles, columns and even letters to the editor about the need to bring "war criminals" in Bosnia to justice. The popular CBS program "60 Minutes" has run a segment about this issue not once but twice.

New York Times liberal columnist Anthony Lewis, a noted civil libertarian, weighed in with a column finding Bosnian Serb leaders Radovan Karadzic and General Radko Mladic guilty of "ghastly" crimes, despite the fact they haven't even been tried!

The one-sided coverage is spurred by the desire not to appear soft on human rights violations. It is apparent that there is a media competition underway to see who can be the toughest on "war criminals."

Similarly, most members of the U.S. Congress - Democrats and Republicans alike - have gone along with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, voting tens of millions of our dollars for the effort.

The perceived "success" of the Yugoslavia court has convinced the Clinton Administration and its allies that the time is right for creating a permanent International Criminal Court (ICC) and that Congress can be convinced to go along with it. But this is a court which would have the power to indict, arrest, prosecute and imprison American citizens.

Unfortunately, the media have not seen fit to tell people some basic facts about the Yugoslavia Tribunal: that there is no legitimate basis in international law for the court and that it violates accepted standards of American judicial procedures.


Illegitimate

The Yugoslavia Court was established without the benefit of a treaty by the U.N. Security Council when it decided that Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, authorizing the deployment of U.N. military forces, also gave the world body the ability to arrest, prosecute and jail individuals. This was a blatant and illegal power grab.

As the U.N. itself admitted in an unofficial background paper, "Normally, such a Tribunal would be established by treaty rather than by the Security Council. The Secretary-General, however, pointed out that such an approach would require "considerable time" and that "there could be no guarantee that ratification will be received from those States which should be parties to the treaty if it is to be truly effective.""

So the U.N. simply went ahead on its own.

The Center for U.N. Reform Education, a pro-U.N. group, admitted that the creation of this tribunal was "unprecedented," and that Article 29 of the Charter was used in an unusual manner to establish the tribunal as a "subsidiary organ" of the U.N. In an understatement, the group said that the Security Council's creation of the court "appears on the surface to be a rather liberal interpretation of the traditional peace and security mandate. As such, it represents one more expansion of the Council's jurisdiction."

The costs associated with the establishment and operation of this proposed "permanent" U.N. judicial arm are not known. It would require a bureaucracy, investigators, a police force to arrest targeted individuals, and a prison system.

However, U.N. Secretary General Boutros-Ghali has the answer to this problem - global taxes. And he will pursue this agenda if he gets a second term as Secretary General.


V. Communists and the U.N.

Why Reds Support the U.N.

The Communists see the U.N. as useful to them in several different ways. First, it serves as cover for their espionage activities. Second, it serves as a propaganda forum. And third, if the U.N. is transformed into a full-fledged world state, the Communists believe they can dominate it, like they have so many other "coalition governments" in the past.

Communism, of course, is far from dead. Red Chinese communism is very much alive. And Soviet-style communism is also alive, albeit with a different face.

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) journal Foreign Affairs itself published a November/December 1994 article, "The Fall and Rise of the Communists," noting that "ex" or "former" Communists are mounting a strong comeback in Central Europe.

In other words, members of the establishment, including David Rockefeller, know exactly what is happening. Yet they continue to act as if the Cold War has really ended.

Gus Hall, chairman of the hard-line Communist Party USA, declared in a party document obtained by The ASAP Report that while he is disappointed by the "crisis" in the communist world, "In Bulgaria, Poland, Hungary and Slovakia, Communists have been elected back into power." Hall added, "It is our belief that around the world, almost all of the communist and workers parties are rebuilding and revitalizing their parties and the struggle for socialism."

The Communists have to be extremely pleased that President Clinton has recognized Communist regimes in Angola and Vietnam, and helped Communists come to power in South Africa. They also have reason to hope that Clinton will open diplomatic relations with Communist Cuba.

To the extent that Clinton promotes the U.N., the Communists are also extremely pleased. Similar to the Clinton administration, the CPUSA's weekly paper, the People's Weekly World, has eagerly embraced the U.N. agenda.

Its April 15, 1995, edition, for example, carried a fascinating article entitled, "Red Roots, Green Shoots," which laid out the party's environmental program, including the admonition that the U.S. should "join in efforts by other countries to make the United Nations an instrument for peace and environmental preservation, not an instrument for imperialist domination."

Why is the CPUSA in favor of protecting the environment? Because the Communists see the issue as an opportunity for a world government to control the industrialized world. They want us to forget that a centralized bureaucracy in the "former" Soviet Union made that nation the most polluted on the planet.

In a June 24, 1995, article subtitled, "Fighting for a democratic and more effective U.N. on its 50th anniversary," the CPUSAs People's Weekly World urged measures to further dilute American influence in the world body by abolishing the veto powers of the five permanent members of the U.N. (U.S., Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom).

The Communist paper also endorsed global taxes, saying these proposals (advanced at the March 1995 U.N.-sponsored World Summit for Social Development) represent a "challenge" to U.S. interests.

The paper strongly attacked U.S. Congressional Republican proposals to cut funding for the U.N., saying that the aim of the GOP is to formulate "a completely unfettered U.S. foreign policy without having to justify its actions to the world community."

With these comments, the Communists have displayed their true motives: the U.N. is seen by them as an effort to thwart American national interests. It's nice of them to finally admit it.

The People's Weekly World also ran a laudatory article about the U.N. Fourth World Conference of Women in Communist China, in September 1995.


Red Spy and the Dollar's Decline
Although the United Nations is not officially a world government, elements of what is called the "U.N. System" already "manage" the world economy to a remarkable degree. Here, too, the evidence shows that an identified Soviet agent played a key role in bringing this about.

In 1944, the "Bretton Woods" international monetary conference was held. Out of this event came the Bretton Woods agreement and the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the International Trade Organization (which was rejected by the U.S. Senate, only to be replaced by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the World Trade Organization).

The key Communist agent at this event was Harry Dexter White, described by former Soviet KGB officer Oleg Gordievsky as "the most important" of several Soviet agents in the Treasury Department of Franklin Roosevelt.

Gordievsky explained that White "had taken the leading part in formulating American policy for the international financial order of the postwar world. Together with Lord Keynes, he was the dominating figure at the Bretton Woods Conference of July 1944... In January 1945 he became assistant secretary of the Treasury."

Joan M. Veon, a financial adviser who studies the U.N., says the real purpose of Bretton Woods was "to determine the value of money" in the postwar era. So what has happened in the meantime? The U.S. dollar, once the international reserve currency of the world, is now in danger of being replaced by the German Deutsche-mark and the Japanese yen. Eventually, Veon says a world currency could actually be implemented under the cover of a second Bretton Woods agreement.

Veon's concerns are buttressed by a report from the Institute for International Economics, which uses words like "hard landing" to describe sharply higher interest rates and a recession stemming from America's historically high trade deficits - the same kind of problem that triggered the Mexican financial crisis. Institute president C. Fred Bergsten went so far as to warn of a possible "collapse" of the U.S. economy.

The key problem is that the U.S. trade deficit is causing a decline in the value of the dollar, scaring foreign capital away from the U.S. and toward Germany and Japan.

This is just the kind of crisis the internationalists need to junk the dollar and create their world currency.

Go to Part II