The following is a sample of the thinking (?) of some of the proponents of world government. It is by a John Pinder, in a recent pamphlet of Federal Union.
"The explanation (of why the U.N. has not been able to achieve world harmony as yet) is simple. The Charter accepted the principle of national sovereignty... At present the veto prevents it (the Security Council) from taking decisions; the veto must go. At present the national armed forces can resist the authority (power) of the United Nations; they will have to be disbanded and at the same time a U.N. police force must be organized in order to enforce the United Nations law. This reformed United Nations, with the means to prevent war, will necessarily be much more powerful than the present U.N. It will, in fact, be a World Government...
"Such a government must be democratic... not the arbitrary rule of a small group of people who have gained power and mean to hold on to it until it is torn from them by force. Such an authoritarian rule would be intolerable... the reformed United Nations would, therefore, need to be democratic."
In February, London was again the scene of talks between Britain, France, Canada, U.S.A., and Russia to ban the H-bomb. The basis of the talks is a plan put forward by Britain and France for disarmament in three stages:
1. An International Arms Control Commission with officials placed around the world.
2. Further manufacture of all nuclear weapons to be banned and the first stage of a conventional arms cut to be made.
3. When this is accomplished, all existing nuclear weapons would be scrapped and conventional arms again cut to a finally agreed level.
Does anyone know what has been happening in Indo-China, or in Korea, after agreements had been made?
∗ ∗ ∗
Young King Norsdom Sihanouk of Cambodia announces that he intends to abdicate. Why? A few weeks ago, by special referendum, his people approved of what he had done since he suspended the constitution. Then he prepared a new constitution in conformity with a system, traditional to his country, whereby administration was to be built up upon a village and provincial basis, leading to indirect representation and a discouragement of the Party game. The International Armistice Commission rejected it!
- Comments Candour, Mar. 11, 1955, “International Finance has learnt how to manipulate the system of direct universal suffrage — the Party game - to its heart's content."
∗ ∗ ∗
INTELLIGENCE DIGEST (Aug.'53) revealed the following objectives of powerful groups working for 'world government':
"The idea is to have a world army. In this, Russians, Asians, and Africans would predominate, because it would be related to populations. Units of the world army would be stationed anywhere except in their own countries (emphasis added). Thus, there might be Russian, Asian, and African forces controlling the U. S., the European countries of the British Commonwealth, and Western Europe. We might, in fact, be policed by Asians and Africans. Their duties — it is stated — would be to endorce the World Government's law."
"The World Government would — according to this plan – consist of appointed members, and would reflect population strength; so that it would be dominated by Russians, Asians, and Africans. The white nations would be in a permanent minority. If they objected to any resolution of this Parliament, the World Government military forces would have power to curb local opposition.
"In other words, Asian troops in the U.S., or the British Commonwealth would suppress any wishes of our citizens which were contrary to the World Parliament's decisions — a parliament dominated by the same racial forces which would possess dominant military strength."