Disarmament and Destruction
by William Norman Grigg
Under the guise of "peace and safety" the United Nations seeks to disarm entire populations. Never mind that disarmed populations invariably invite tyranny and genocide!
Global disarmament: The United Nations is intent on granting itself a monopoly on the use of force by removing small arms from private hands. History has shown that such monopolies have contributed to tyranny, bloodshed, and genocide.
For when they shall say, Peace and safety, then sudden destruction cometh upon them... and they shall not escape.
— I Thessalonians 5:4
According to the United Nations, global "peace and safety" are to be achieved through "general and complete disarmament" with the UN acting as guarantor of international collective security, and UN-approved internal security forces entrusted with keeping the peace at the national level. This is a Utopian vision to be sure, and as such it has broad appeal among the idealistic and undiscerning masses. Behind the soothing internationalist rhetoric, however, is a recipe for a totalitarian future in which peace and safety are achieved not by the complete elimination of weapons, but by the creation of an irresistible United Nations monopoly on the use of force.
Recent history has shown that such a monopoly, built in part on the unsteady foundation of idealism, can lead to genocide. A case in point is Africa, which in the past decade has already witnessed one UN-abetted genocide and may soon witness another.
The blueprint for a disarmed world under UN control is State Department Publication 7277, entitled Freedom From War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World. This plan was introduced by President John F. Kennedy in a 1961 speech to the UN General Assembly and is to this day the framework of the federal government's "arms control" policy.
Until recently, the application of this blueprint to civilian disarmament — more commonly referred to by the artful euphemism "gun control" — was largely inferential. However, in recent years, the UN has dispelled any ambiguity in this matter: "General and complete disarmament" must include UN-imposed measures to control the sale and possession of "small arms" by civilians.
The Rwanda Model
According to the recent United Nations disarmament propaganda film Armed to the Teeth: The World-Wide Plague of Small Arms, only those weapons that are "used by armies and police forces to protect us" can be considered "legal." Small arms in private hands, by way of contrast, constitute a pestilence: "Small arms are not fussy about the company they keep. They can murder indiscriminately. The gun that killed in Africa can do it again in Latin America, or in Asia .... Humankind is beginning a new millennium under the sign of the gun. Small arms are like uninvited guests who won't leave. Once they take over a country, they are virtually impossible to get rid of."
The film proudly displays "peacekeepers" in Africa, Latin America, and the Balkans doing their part to rid the world of the "plague" of privately owned firearms. The weapons are collected, often as part of what would be described in this country as a "gun buy-back," and destroyed. Only by creating global mechanisms to prevent civilians from having access to "illegal weapons," insists the agitprop film, "can genocide as happened in Rwanda be prevented."
In fact, it was precisely the model of "gun control" championed by the UN that facilitated the genocide in Rwanda. In a special supplement to their valuable study Lethal Laws, the group Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) documents the fact that civilian disarmament was a precursor to the 103-day orgy of violence that killed at least 800,000 people — and perhaps as many as 1.1 million — in 1994.
"This genocide, like all genocide, was planned," explains the JPFO report. "It did not just 'happen.' The primary intended targets were easily identified in advance by community leaders, by appearance, and by their 'national identity' cards .... In pre-genocide Rwanda, every adult was legally required to have a 'national identity' card, which stated the bearer's ethnicity. These 'national identity' cards became death warrants for tens of thousands of victims." At the time, Rwanda was ruled by a faction drawn from the Hutu ethnic group, which sought to exterminate outright the Tutsi sub-population, along with politically unreliable Hutus.
Once the targeted group had been identified, it was demonized relentlessly as "cockroaches" by the government-controlled media, and killing squads of politically reliable Hutus, called Interahamwe militia, were organized. Most of the lnterahamwe cadres were armed with machetes, rather than firearms. According to the JPFO report, however, "the genocide regime's police and troops had government-issued firearms. The genocide regime also gave firearms and training to trusted civilians. In other cases, the regime issued to its supporters permits to buy firearms."
Most importantly, the victims "were not armed, even though they knew they were at risk. They had previously been subject to smaller-scale attacks. However, 'gun control' laws enacted on 21 November 1964 and 7 May 1979 kept them from legally buying firearms for self-defense. Many had the money to do so, despite Rwanda's general poverty. Many members of the target groups were of the former political or current business elite .... Almost all the intended victims of Rwanda's genocide regime tried to resist. They did not submit quietly to their murderers. The intended victims used stones, clubs, and improvised weapons. In literally a handful of cases, they used firearms, taken from their would-be murderers."
Disarmed and in danger: UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan views the remains of victims of the 1994 Rwanda genocide (above). Then head of peacekeeping operations for the UN, on January 11, 1994 Annan received information from Lt. Gen. Romeo Dallaire (right), the Canadian head of the UN peacekeeping force in Rwanda, that the Hutu government of Rwanda was intent on massacring the nation's disarmed Tutsi population. Dallaire wished to intervene but was forbidden to do so by Annan's office.
"They take them [the victims] from this building, this church," declared Jeanne Niwemutesi, a former secretary in the U.S. embassy, to a New York Times reporter. After taking refuge in the Holy Family Church in Kigali, Mrs. Niwe-mutesi watched in horror as the government-controlled mobs annihilated their unarmed victims: "They have guns and knives and machetes, the people from the Government party, so we can't fight back. We don't have arms."
Due in part to Rwanda's strict "gun control" measures, the genocide regime achieved a remarkable efficiency rate, liquidating 80-90 percent of the targeted population and leaving many thousands of survivors maimed. Many victims were left limbless; others had what one Belgian doctor described as "very, very deep [wounds] to the back of the neck."
The UN: Midwife to Genocide
At the time that the Rwandan genocide erupted, there were 2,500 "peacekeepers" deployed in the country to administer a cease-fire between the Hutu government and Tutsi rebels and to supervise a "secure weapons" area in Kigali, the nation's capital. By deploying the blue-helmeted troops — most of whom were Belgian or Canadian — the UN sought to persuade Rwandans to invest their hopes for "peace and safety" in the UN's Freedom From War formula: The central government and its authorized military and police organs would have a monopoly on firearms, under the supervision of armed representatives of the "world community." The destruction that ensued may have been sudden, but it was anything but unexpected — at least to the UN.
On January 11, 1994, three months before the mass slaughter began, Lieutenant-General Romeo Dallaire, commander of the peacekeeping forces, sent an urgent fax entitled "Request for Protection for Informant" to the head of the UN's peacekeeping division in New York. Dallaire informed his superiors that a high-ranking member of the Hutu government was being paid huge sums of money to compile lists of Tutsis. "He suspects it is for their extermination," explained Dallaire. "[The] example he gave was that in twenty minutes his personnel could kill up to a thousand Tutsis."
"The informant had offered to assist the UN force in raiding Interahamwe weapons caches, and all he asked in return was UN protection for himself, his wife, and their four children," reported Philip Gourevich in The New Yorker. Dallaire "announced his intention to raid an arms cache within thirty-six hours, and he recommended that his superiors in New York help the informant be 'evacuated out of Rwanda.'"
A return fax sent out under the name of the head of UN peacekeeping operations forbade Dallaire to conduct the operation or offer protection to his informant. Instead, he was ordered to provide the intelligence provided by the informant to the very Hutu government that was preparing the massacre. He was also instructed to offer a stern warning to that government that its plans to organize the systematic slaughter of the Tutsis "represent a clear threat to the peace process" and constituted a "clear violation" of the "Kigali weapons-secure area" — but that no pre-emptive action by the UN peacekeeping force would be taken.
UN spokesman Fred Eckhard told the September 25, 1997 Washington Post that while direct action against the arms caches was ruled out, one option discussed within the peacekeeping directorate was having the peacekeepers form "a cordon sanitaire [barricade] around the area of the operations while the government went in" and seized the weapons — once again, a plan which made absolutely no sense in light of the established genocidal intent of that very government. In any case, the instructions issued by the head of the UN peacekeeping division, which were shared with the Hutu government, were little short of a green light for genocide. The official who gave the go-ahead signal is Kofi Annan, who was later appointed UN secretary-general, a post he presently holds.
Belgian Senator Alain Destexhe was left incredulous by the UN's complicity in the Rwandan holocaust. The UN's decision to betray the Hutu defector, share his intelligence with the Hutu regime, and disavow any intention of preventing the slaughter was "like informing a terrorist that you know he's preparing his terrorism and assuring him you're not going to do anything about it," complained Destexhe.
Propaganda campaign: To support its drive to bring about global gun control, the UN has produced the agitprop film Armed to the Teeth: The World-Wide Plague of Small Arms (left). According to the film, only those weapons "used by armies and police forces to protect us" are "legal." In Rwanda the result of such gun control measures as advocated by the UN was genocide, according to a supplemental study (right) by the group Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.
One year later, a special commission under the leadership of former Swedish Prime Minister Ingvar Carlsson (a co-chairman of the Commission on Global Governance) issued a 57-page report acknowledging Annan's complicity, in spite of his denials. He and his chief deputy, Iqbal Riza, had ignored clear and detailed warnings of the impending genocide, and thereby helped facilitate it.
Genocide on the Horizon?
Rwanda's 103-day orgy of fratricide was the 20th century's last genocide; Zimbabwe displays every symptom of being the site of the inaugural genocide of the 21 st. This time the targets would be the tiny minority of white farmers who remained after the former Rhodesia was delivered into the hands of Robert Mugabe's Communist junta in 1980, and any black Zimbabwe residents who are deemed politically unsuitable. Recent events in Zimbabwe duplicate, with unsettling precision, the course followed by Rwanda as it descended into hell.
Mugabe is already accomplished at genocide, having conducted a lengthy campaign to exterminate the politically troublesome Ndebele tribe during the 1980s. In 1985, with Zimbabwe's white population reduced from 200,000 to 100,000, Mugabe announced: "We are going to do a clean-up operation so that we remain only with the whites who want to work with the Government." After 20 years of Marxist rule, white-owned farms constitute the only productive sector of the Zimbabwean economy. Although the farmers represent less than I percent of the population, they are responsible for twenty-five percent of all employment in the country, and 40 percent of the nation's export earnings.
In predictable Communist fashion, Mugabe has decided to confiscate those farms and kill any farmers who resist expropriation. Just as predictably, his regime is making use of an inherited gun registration law to disarm his potential victims. In an echo of the Rwandan lnterahamwe killing squads, Mugabe has unleashed armed mobs called the War Veterans of Zimbabwe (wvz) upon white farmers and their black supporters. And the official who is organizing the terror calls himself "Hitler."
Mugabe's mayhem: Zimbabwe may be the scene of the first genocide of the new millennium. President Robed Mugabe (left) has sought to create a government monopoly on firearms. He has also allowed the militant War Veterans of Zimbabwe under the leadership of Chenjerai "Hitler" Hunzvi (above) to forcibly seize white-owned farms, murder their owners, and terrorize all who oppose the carnage.
The thugs who call themselves the "War Veterans of Zimbabwe" are a very familiar type to former soldier of fortune Michael Peirce. "If these guys are war veterans," commented Peirce to THE NEW AMERICAN, "I'm a monkey's uncle." Peirce, a software developer in Atlanta and an essayist whose work is featured on the LewRockwell.com website, is a veteran of the Rhodesian war. From 1978 to 1980, Peirce fought as a volunteer on behalf of the anti-Communist forces. "I'm 50, which is the age of most of the veterans of that war," observes Peirce. "I was inspired to join up after I read a story about a woman defending her farm. The photos of the so-called veterans generally show a bunch of kids in their 20s or young men in their 30s who would have been too young to fight. They're simply a pack of Communist rabble. They're not militia; they're terrorists and murderers who should be hung."
Unleashing the Terror
Beginning in March 2000, Mugabe authorized the WVZ to begin seizing farms; at present more than 1,000 have been occupied, and more than 30 farmers have been killed. The London Daily Telegraph for March 4, 2000 described how, following Mugabe's announcement that he intended to "deport the whites back to Britain," dozens of farms were overran "by mobs armed with spears and axes, many of [the squatters] drank or under the influence of drags." Rob Brown, a farmer whose land was seized, described how some 90 armed, drunken thugs were bussed in from the capital city of Harare to drive him off his land.
"We will do what the people of Zimbabwe want and they want the land," declared Chenjerai "Hitler" Hunzvi, head of the WVZ, as the expropriations began. "These whites who claim to be Zimbabwean, we will just deport them back to Britain." When asked by a reporter about the violence and bloodshed that were certain to occur if the seizures continue, "Hitler" Hunzvi replied: "This is war. It's an economic war to transform the means of production. Economic war is more bitter than political war."
Hunzvi played a significant role in bringing about the economic collapse that provided a pretext for the farm seizures. The April 8, 2000 issue of the London Telegraph pointed out that Hunzvi was among the officials implicated in 1997 when it was revealed that the veterans' pension fund had been pilfered. Along with several other WVZ representatives Hunzvi delivered an ultimatum to Mugabe: Pay us off, or die. Mugabe raided the treasury to provide an $850 payment to 50,000 veterans. "The payment began a slide towards high budget deficits, high inflation, a collapse of the currency, high unemployment and a crisis in foreign currency reserves, leading to severe fuel shortages," noted the Telegraph.
In familiar fashion, Mugabe sought to shore up his political position by seizing upon a scapegoat — the "racist" farmers, who are supposedly the salient of an international white racist conspiracy to impoverish Zimbabwe. On April 17th of last year, shortly after the WVZ was unleashed, a delegation from the Commercial Farmers Union met with Mugabe to urge him to call off the assault. According to Mugabe's account of the meeting, he told the farmers that "you are our enemies, because you have behaved as enemies of Zimbabwe and that we are full of anger. Our entire community is angry and this is why you see the war veterans seizing land."
The gravest "offense" committed by the farmers, according to Mugabe, was their success in persuading a majority of black Zimbabwe voters to oppose a referendum that would have amended the constitution to permit the seizure of farms without compensation. Although the referendum was defeated, it was passed by the parliament and signed by Mugabe on April 18, 2000 — the 20th anniversary of the fall of Rhodesia to Communism. On the same day, 43-year-old farmer Martin Olds was murdered by an armed mob — 70 men, according to one account. The mob surrounded his farm, pinned him in the bathroom of his home, set the house aflame with Molotov cocktails, gunned him down when he tried to escape, and mutilated his dead body. During the battle Olds used a radio to call for an ambulance; the mob turned the ambulance away when it arrived.
On the same day that Olds was murdered, Zimbabwe's central police agency began a crackdown on firearms possession by the white farmers. Mugabe's Information Minister Chen Chimutengwende told the April 18th Telegraph that the crackdown was provoked by "military activity on farms. So many white farmers have applied for licenses to train security guards. But we know that this is for military purposes and it includes firearms training. They have so many unlicensed firearms." According to Chimutengwende, police had orders to search all 4,000 white-owned farms for weapons and diesel fuel — the latter commodity being very valuable, in light of the ever-worsening fuel shortage.
"We Will Cut Your Limbs"
This is not to say that the Zimbabwe national police and WVZ are fastidious about saving diesel fuel. Shortly after Mugabe commenced his anti-farmer rampage, WVZ thugs abducted farmer David Stevens, a supporter of the Movement for Democratic Change, the nation's chief opposition party. As recounted by the January 21st edition of 60 Minutes, Stevens was taken to police headquarters in Murewa for interrogation. He was then taken to a nearby cave, forced to drink diesel fuel, and shot twice in the face. Asked by reporter Leslie Cockburn about the deaths of Olds, Stevens, and other farmers, Mugabe smirked and replied, "They provoked it. They should have been more careful." Mugabe has granted a blanket amnesty for all crimes committed by the WVZ against the farmers and black political dissidents.
Cockbum and a camera crew were present at the farm of Harry Milbank when a WVZ contingent arrived. "We are not doing this on our own, but we are following the orders from a superior, that is from the government," the gang leader explained on-camera. Asked if his group intended to drive Milbank from his land, the goon replied: "If he is going to argue with us he is committing suicide. Mr. Milbank is very stubborn and we are going to take this farm whether he likes it or not." To the 60 Minutes reporter the thug issued a crude warning: "Don't put yourself into danger. If you misquote us, then I will know, we will cut your limbs, and will get you."
Similar threats were issued to farmer Melville Hubbard, who owns a farm about 15 miles from the scene of Martin Olds' murder. In December of last year the WVZ cadres who killed Olds sent Hubbard the following warning: "We don't want to see you, or your family. Your friend Martin was our breakfast for Independence Day [April 18], so you are going to be our breakfast for Christmas. We want you to know we are coming to destroy your home. With your wife, we will fix you. We don't want to kill you at your work. We want you at home."
The New Year brought another escalation in the campaign — and another echo of the Rwandan genocide. According to the January 3rd issue of South Africa's Financial Gazette, high-ranking officers of the Zimbabwe Republic Police (the nation's centralized police agency) "have clandestinely released firearms from the police armoury to independence war veterans"; many of those firearms, according to the report, are being stored in arms caches around the country, perhaps in anticipation of Mugabe's final solution to the problems presented by his domestic opposition.
The UN has admonished Mugabe to halt his illegal seizure of white-owned farms — but only because the campaign has alienated international support for the "peaceful" confiscation of those farms through "land reform." In a letter to Mugabe, Mark Malloch Brown, administrator of the UN Development Program (UNDP), warned that "neither the Secretary-General nor I will be able to secure any donor financial support until outstanding law and order issues are brought under control. Every donor I have consulted has been adamant."
The London Daily Telegraph for January 7th noted that Brown's letter criticized the seizures for being carded out by Mugabe's supporters, who have "no farming experience." "It is our professional view," declared the UNDP administrator, "that the approach of immediate resettlement with investment and services to follow is unlikely to succeed in achieving its goal, particularly in the economic environment." In other words, the seizures have alienated UN "donor support" because they're chaotic and economically nonviable — not because they involve crimes against persons and property and represent an overture to genocide. And of course, Brown's letter — as summarized in the press — made no mention of UN disapproval for Mugabe's moves to disarm the prospective victims of genocide.
Then again, why would Annan and his comrades find fault with Zimbabwe's "micro-disarmament" campaign against the white farmers? Apart from the unfortunate irregularities that have accompanied the farm seizures, Mugabe has done little to deviate from the Freedom From War program. He is taking steps to ensure that the central police force and military, along with its duly deputized "select" militia, the WVZ, have a monopoly on firearms. Assuming that he is able to work out his disagreements with the UNDP regarding the details of land reform, Mugabe could find himself in the UN's good graces again — perhaps just in time for a "peacekeeping" contingent to arrive to help with any mopping-up operation that might be necessary.
UN Target: Our Firearms
"Communism is almost boring, it's so predictable," former Rhodesian freedom fighter Michael Peirce remarked to THE NEW AMERICAN. "It proceeds in stages, and disarmament of the demonized population is one of those stages. And this inevitably leads to a stage in which the Communists kill a lot of people." For that final stage to occur, he points out, "the Communists have to take the guns away from their victims."
Propaganda disseminated by the UN in support of its campaign for global civilian disarmament makes prominent use of the horrifying human cost of the wars and bloodshed that have ravaged Africa. Having fought in an African civil war — and having witnessed first-hand the global political machinations that have advanced the cause of the total state — Michael Peirce offers a perspective informed by personal experience.
"The UN complains that Africa is 'flooded' with small arms and light weapons, which is certainly the case," he points out. "But the problem isn't the presence of weapons. Rhodesia before it was turned over to the Communists was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth, and it was far more civilized and peaceful than some parts of the United States are today."
"If Mugabe decides to confiscate all the farms and brutalize the farmers, there will be a lot of political pressure for the West to intervene, either through the UN or in some coalition," Peirce predicts. "And this would probably be a lose-lose situation, because it will be used to reinforce the idea that the tragedy is another illustration of the need to control the possession and availability of firearms. The UN has an obvious interest in taking away our weapons — not just those in Africa or elsewhere, but those owned by Americans as well. Make no mistake about it: They are after our guns, and heaven help us if we don't wake up and stop them before it's too late."
Gun Grab: UN headquarters, which features this statue, will be the site of the world body's Conference on Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons, which is scheduled to take place this July. On the agenda will be "micro-disarmament," more commonly known as gun control.
Copyright 2001, American Opinion Publishing, Incorporated
P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI 54913
Subscriptions: $39.00/year (26 issues) 1-800-727-TRUE
Released for informational purposes to allow individual file transfer, Usenet, and non-commercial mail-list posting only. All other copyright privileges reserved.