The Nuclear Security Summit held in Washington on April 12-13 continued President Obama’s agenda to place authority over the U.S. nuclear arsenal under the control of a series of treaties — some bilateral and some subject to UN control. Quite fittingly, an AP reporter described the summit as “the largest assembly hosted by a U.S. leader since the founding conference of the United Nations in 1945.”
The importance given to these two events — held some 65 years apart — is indicated somewhat by their sheer size, but more importantly by the continuation of a pattern of subjugating America’s military forces to the “Regional Arrangements” (such as NATO) authorized by the UN Charter to employ “enforcement action under its authority” in order to maintain “international peace.” This surrender of our sovereign authority over our national defense is further compounded by disarmament treaties signed between the United States and the Soviet Union/Russia, as a prelude to eventually placing all of the world’s nuclear arsenal under UN control.
In a blog posted on the White House website April 12, Jesse Lee, the White House Online Programs Director, stated:
The New Start Treaty was signed [on April 8] two days after the Department of Defense released the new Nuclear Posture Review, which establishes as a goal of America’s foreign policy “to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy and focus on reducing the nuclear dangers of the 21st century, while sustaining a safe, secure and effective nuclear deterrent for the United States and our allies and partners as long as nuclear weapons exist.”
Following the summit on April 13, President Obama told reporters at a press conference: “We need to strengthen the institutions and partnerships that we already have — and make them even more effective. This includes the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the multilateral partnership that strengthens nuclear security, prevent nuclear trafficking and assist nations in building their capacity to secure their nuclear materials.” (Emphasis added.)
During the press conference, the President made further reference to the UN’s supposed authority to regulate nuclear power. In answer to a question from a reporter seeking clarification about exactly what Chinese President Hu Jintao had agreed to, and if the President thought there actually will be economic sanctions against Iran that the Chinese will support, Obama responded:
The Chinese have sent official representatives to negotiations in New York to begin the process of drafting a sanctions resolution. That is part of the P5-plus-1 effort [the five permanent members of the UN Security Council — plus Germany]. And the United States is not moving this process alone; we’ve got the participation of the Russians as well as the other members of the P5-plus-1, all of whom believe that it is important for us to send a strong signal to Iran that their consistent violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions … and that they’ve got a better path to take. [Emphasis added.]
As this writer and others have consistently warned over the years, U.S.-led overtures to achieve a “nuclear-free world” have always been aimed at empowering the United Nations. The goal of a “nuclear-free world” is a misnomer anyway, since the nuclear “genie” could never be put back into the bottle again.
The first and most blatant example of this move to surrender U.S. sovereignty to the UN occurred on September 25, 1961, when President John F. Kennedy presented to the 16th General Assembly of the United Nations a disarmament proposal entitled Freedom from War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World (State Department Publication 7277).
Excerpts from the document include:
• “As states relinquish their arms, the United Nations shall be progressively strengthened in order to improve its capacity to assure international security.”
• “By the time Stage II [of the three-stage disarmament program] has been completed, the confidence produced through a verified disarmament program … and the development of strengthened international peace-keeping processes within the framework of the U.N. should have reached a point where the states of the world can move forward to Stage III. In Stage III progressive controlled disarmament and continuously developing principles and procedures of international law would proceed to a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force.” (Emphasis added.)
— Photo: AP Images
