Forcing Change

Posted July 2011

One World, One Force - Part 2

Arming the International Community

1946 to 1959

By Carl Teichrib, Chief Editor - Volume 5, Issue 6

Part 1 here




Index to previous articles from Forcing Change


In the first part of this series, “One World, One Force,” we examined the history of a Big Idea - the dream of an international military force as an extension of “world government.” The timeline started in 1900 and ended with 1945, and it provided a brief survey of the people, concepts, and historical developments that gave rise to this “One World” quest.

This second part, “Dancing the Cold War Two-Step,” continues the timeline and focuses on the opening of the Cold War and the Atomic Era. It’s a critical period, for these short years birthed UN peacekeeping, regional security partnerships, and global military alliances. Underpinning much of this was the desire for “world order,” and the constant struggle between two dominant systems - pitting one half of the world against the other.

While this timeline features the push for a world authority equipped with teeth, it must be recognized that history has a way of causing such ideas to rise, stumble, and re-surface. Besides opposition by individuals and groups to world government, the thrust and counter-thrust of larger players and historical forces have probably done more to stem this tide. Yet, the underlying “One World” rhythm can be distinctly heard as the world moves with the beat of time.

TIMELINE: 1946-1959

1946: On March 25, The Indian Express published, “Big Five to Discuss World Police Force.”

“Military, naval and air representatives of the ‘Big Five’ - Britain, United States, Russia, France and China - will meet in [a] New York hotel today to discuss plans for establishing a World Police Force...

According to unconfirmed reports, several members of the Military Staff Committee have indicated to the United States the need for creating an international force of about 2,000,000 men.

The American contribution to the force will not, it is believed here, include an atomic bomb carrying air group.

It is pointed out, however, that once the Military Staff Committee gets down to its discussions, little or no news will be made public, because it was decided at its London meeting that absolute secret [sic] was necessary in military talks and planning.”

On the same day The Miami News, in a column titled “United Nations Military Staff To Begin Study Of World Army,” reported that “discussions will range all the way from the use of the atomic bomb to the kind of equipment that will be provided...”

A few weeks later on April 11, a Gettysburg Times article, “Military Men Plan World Police Force,” confirmed earlier reports of secretive military meetings in a New York-based hotel.

“Speculation naturally centers around the size of this gigantic military force and how much the 51 member nations each will contribute... Most guesses so far have leaned to the theory that the United States will contribute heavily in air and sea units, with perhaps the largest share of the ground forces being drawn from Russia.”

1946 - 1949: Citizens and leaders alike see in the United Nations a new hope for world peace. At the same time, tension builds between the Soviet Union and Western countries.

At what point the Cold War starts is difficult to say: It’s foreshadowed in the 1945 war conferences at Yalta and Potsdam - events where “official Washington had promised too much and expected too much to recognize the Soviet sphere of influence.” So too a shadow is evident in speeches and communiqués, with Churchill’s 1946 Fulton address highlighting the new Soviet balance of power in Europe. Ironically, the British and American positions at the end of the war played major roles in enabling Soviet entrenchment.

In 1947, President Truman introduced what is known as the Truman Doctrine; a position supporting Greece and Turkey against Communist influence, and in so doing placed America in opposition to the Soviet Union. But where the Cold War ramped up was Berlin and the 1948 Blockade, a crisis over access to the Allied-sector of Berlin. From this point the rivalry between East and West took center stage in world affairs.

Other significant changes were happening around the globe: French and British colonial holdings shifted, new players emerged in the Middle East - including the nation of Israel and its subsequent attacked by six Arab armies, the final phase of China’s bloody civil war solidified the power of the Communist Party, and India and Pakistan gained independence and entered into conflict.

And in the minds of world leaders the specter of mushroom clouds hung. Therefore, if the planet was to survive this new and dangerous Cold War era, then disarmament and global leadership would be necessary.

In 1949 the USSR tested its first atomic weapon.

     - “Official Washington” quote; Norman A. Graebner, Cold War Diplomacy, 1945-1960 (Van Nostrand, 1962), p.21.

1946: March 5 - Speaking at Westminster College (Fulton, Missouri), former Prime Minister Winston Churchill endorsed a world force operating through the United Nations Organization.

    “A world organization has already been erected for the prime purpose of preventing war, UNO, the successor of the League of Nations...

    I have, however, a definite and practical proposal to make for action. Courts and magistrates may be set up but they cannot function without sheriffs and constables. The United Nations Organization must immediately begin to be equipped with an international armed force... I propose that each of the Powers and States should be invited to delegate a certain number of air squadrons to the service of the world organization... They would not be required to act against their own nation, but in other respects they would be directed by the world organization.”

Churchill believed the “brotherhood of man” would be embodied “in a world organization.” Likewise, he spoke of a “fraternal association of the English-speaking peoples” - the creation of a special military relationship between the British Commonwealth and the United States. This, he argued, wouldn’t compete with the world organization, but would allow it to “achieve its full stature and strength” as a “Temple of Peace.”

In this speech Churchill popularized the phrase “iron curtain,” and appealed for a “new unity in Europe” under the “structure of the United Nations” to counter Soviet power. This Soviet context was also the setting for his desired Anglo-American partnership. For while the British and Americans had promised independence to Eastern European nations during World War II, it was evident that the USSR was now firmly entrenched in these lands.

His address was disdained by many. President Truman, who was at the Fulton event, distanced himself from Churchill’s comments. In a New York procession the British statesman was both “hailed and jeered.” The problem wasn’t his “brotherhood of man” embodied in a “world organization,” but his clear call for an Anglo-American alliance established in opposition to the Soviet Union. For some this was an appeal for America to participate in the “preservation of the far-flung British Empire.” Others saw it as a “return to power politics” and the further division of a world already splintered by the forces of war.

Professor of History, Norman A. Graebner, postulated that Churchill’s speech revealed an America that, whatever it thought of the Soviet Union, would “retreat from any program that required more of the United States than an appeal to moral disapprobation.” However, the following year President Truman instituted the Truman Doctrine; a position supporting Greece and Turkey against Communist influence, and in so doing placed America in direct opposition to the growing Soviet sphere of influence.

     - Winston Churchill, “The Sinews of Peace,” Churchill Speaks, 1897-1963: Collected Speeches in Peace and War (Barnes and Noble, 1998), p.878. See the complete speech for his words on “fraternal association,” “iron curtain,” “Europe,” etc.

     - For a brief description of the American reaction, see Norman A. Graebner, Cold War Diplomacy, 1945-1960 (Van Norstrand Company, 1962), p.31.

1946: William C. Bullitt’s book, The Great Globe Itself is published. Bullitt, who was involved in the 1919 Paris Peace Conference and was the first US Ambassador to the Soviet Union - an experience that soured him on Communism - was a strong supporter of an empowered United Nations, one without a Soviet veto. This long-time Council on Foreign Relations member also believed America’s foreign policy should be directed toward the creation a “Federation of European States” as a bulwark against the Soviets.

Internationalism based on morals, he asserted, needed to be advanced in this age of atomic power. This would be expressed twofold:

1) Individuals and nations should “ask God to make us instruments of His justice and peace...” And faith leaders should work to this end: “International morality can be made to grow again by the acts of men of good will in the service of God.”

2) An armed and equipped World government.

“Let us try to imagine how we shall feel when we learn, at some time during the next decade, that the Soviet Government is manufacturing the atomic bomb. We shall then wish desperately that we had a Federal Government of the World. Questions of national sovereignty will seem relatively unimportant, compared with our desire to avoid destruction.

We shall begin to discuss furiously whether or not we should attempt to set up a World Government; and give it exclusive authority to manufacture and hold atomic and other new weapons of mass destruction; authority to inspect every inch of every country to make certain that there is no secret stock or manufacture of such weapons; authority to create a world police force armed with atomic weapons, and, therefore, more powerful than the armed forces of any nation; authority to enforce a world Bill of Rights. We shall wish to create a World Federal Government having much the same authority over national governments that the Federal Government of the Unites States has over our ‘sovereign states’.”

- William C. Bullitt, The Great Globe Itself: A Preface to World Affairs (Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1946), pp. 215-216.

1946: The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is established. One year later Director General of UNESCO, Julian Huxley, publishes his vision of UNESCO - a scientific world humanism grounded in evolution and world unity. Fleshing this out, Huxley wrote,

“UNESCO must constantly be testing its policies against the touchstone of evolutionary progress. A central conflict of our times is that between nationalism and internationalism, between the concept of many national sovereignties and one world sovereignty...

The moral for UNESCO is clear. The task laid upon it of promoting peace and security can never be wholly realized through the means assigned to it - education, science and culture. It must envisage some form of world political unity, whether through a single world government or otherwise, as the only certain means for avoiding war.”

     - Julian Huxley, UNESCO: Its Purpose and its Philosophy (Public Affairs Press, 1947), p.13.

1946: The Chicago Daily Tribune runs a two-part series on a movement to create a world government equipped with an executive body, legislative system, judicial structure, and a military force.

“Upon the achievement of world government, all national armaments save limited quantities for internal policing should be abolished, and the manufacturer of armaments, save those required by a world army and for internal policing, should be banned.”

According to the Tribune series, a number of American-based world government lobby groups were coalescing to form a new organization, Americans United For World Government. In critiquing this group, Robert P. Hillman wrote,

“One of the basic functions of this organization was to serve as a political action group that would actively attempt to defeat candidate that were opposed to world government. In this endeavor they were somewhat successful. Among their victims were Senators Wheeler from Montana, Shipstead of Minnesota, and Nye from North Dakota. Fear was the weapon of choice for this group... ‘the political campaign for a ‘world government’ uses the dread phrase ‘atomic war’ as its propaganda weapon’.”

Hillmann notes that supporters of Americans United For World Government included Marshall Field, James P. Warburg, and Owen D. Young.

      - See, Robert P. Hillmann, Reinventing Government: Fast Bullets and Culture Changes (Murchison Chair of Free Enterprise, University of Texas at Austin, 2001), pp.54-55.

1946-1952: The United Nations Atomic Energy Commission (UNAEC) is created. It’s purpose is to seek international solutions to the question of atomic usage. In this context, the United States introduced the Baruch Plan which called for an international authority to oversee all nuclear development - under a Western based agency. The Soviets proposed an alternative plan prohibiting the use of nuclear devises for mass destruction. However, when the Soviets completed their first nuclear weapons test in 1949, the role of UNAEC effectively evaporated. UNAEC was disbanded in 1952.

1946-1960: This time period has been recognized as the First Nuclear Age, and atomic “disarmament” plans were often part of the diplomatic landscape. Alan Geyer described the game in his book, The Idea of Disarmament,

“And thus began the gamesmanship of disarmament in which the US and USSR sought to out-maneuver each other with grand schemes for disarmament which might win propaganda battles because each would force the other side to take a negative stand.”

    - Alan Geyer, The Idea of Disarmament! Rethinking the Unthinkable (The Brethren Press, 1982), p.19.

1947: Speaking at Albert Hall, London, on May 14 Winston Churchill appealed for world order.

“The creation of an authoritative, all-powerful world order is the ultimate aim towards which we must strive. Unless some effective World Super-Government can be set up and brought quickly into action, the prospects for peace and human progress are dark and doubtful.”

      - Winston Churchill, “United Europe,” Churchill Speaks, 1897-1963: Collected Speeches in Peace and War (Barnes and Noble, 1998), p.913.

1947: World federalists from Europe and North America gathered in Montreux, Switzerland to discuss the goals of their movement, unify actives, and strengthen the cause of global government. This “first international congress of the World Movement for World Federal Government” produced The Montreux Declaration. Point 4 reads,

Creation of a supranational armed forces capable of guaranteeing the security of the world federal government and of its member states. Disarmament of member nations to the level of internal policing requirements.”

World Federalism spreads across the United States. According to the World Federalist Association Activist Guidebook, by November 1947 “large newspapers had given editorial support to the movement and there were 150 student chapters. By 1950 there were more than 40,000 members.”

        - Activist Guidebook (World Federalist Association, 1997), Section 1, page 15.

1947: Albert C. Knudson, a Methodist theologian, advocates a moral and spiritual maturity in world order and called for World Federalism built on the lines of brotherhood. Endorsing world peace, he also recognized the role of force “in the establishment of a pacific world order.”

“Domestic peace and the co-operation implied in it are made possible only by the use or threatened use of force by the national state. And the same will also hold true of international peace when it is finally established. It will be maintained by the use or threatened use of force by an international government of some kind.”

    - Albert C. Knudson, The Philosophy of War and Peace (Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1947), p.198.

1947: In June, the UN Security Council requested figures from national governments regarding the possible make-up of a world police force. The June 19 issue of The Sydney Morning Herald reported that the “Best Troops Will Join World Police.” The Pittsburgh Press printed following on September 11,

“Britain had suggested  eight to 12 ground divisions, six cruisers; Stalin accepts 12 divisions and five or six cruisers. Britain says 1200 planes, 24 destroyers and 12 submarines; Stalin duplicates these figures. While the United States and France propose landing craft for the ground troops - the U.S. suggested 20 division and France 16 - Stalin wants none.

The United States and other nations in the Assembly, should continue to press Russia here. Even a small unbalanced force is better than none; it can be expanded.”

1948: In his third annual report to the United Nations General Assembly, Secretary General Trygve Lie urged Members to empower the organization with its own military system.

“I have under study proposals for the creation of a small United Nations Guard Force which could be recruited by the Secretary-General and placed at the disposal of the Security Council and the General Assembly. Such a force would not be used as a substitute for the forces contemplated in Articles 42 and 43 [of the UN Charter]. It would not be a striking force, but purely a guard force. It could be used for guard duty with United Nations missions, in the conduct of plebiscites under the supervision of the United Nations and in the administration of truce terms. It could be used as a constabulary under the Security Council or the Trusteeship Council in cities like Jerusalem and Trieste [Northeast Italy] during the establishment of international regimes.”

    - Trygve Lie, The Struggle for Lasting Peace (United Nations: Introduction to the Third Annual Report to the General Assembly of the United Nations, 5 July 1948).

1948: The Organization of American States, comprised of nations from Chile to Canada, was formed as a United Nations regional body. Historically, the OAS is the extension of a long-held dream to bring the Western Hemisphere together as a cooperating unit. Introduced in 1826 at the Congress of Panama, this unification idea was re-considered at the 1890 Conference of American States - where delegates agreed to establish the International Union of American Republics (IUAR). Later the IUAR would change its name to the Union of American Republics and host, under its umbrella, the Pan American Union. After World War II the Charter of the Organization of American States was signed by 21 countries, and the Pan American Union building - located in Washington DC - housed the newly created UN regional body. Today, the Pan American Union is the central organ of the OAS.

Chapter 5 of the OAS Charter, which was signed in 1948, ensures collective self-defense. Other provisions establish a judicial council to promote and develop international law within the OAS.

1948: Frederick L. Schuman, then a Woodrow Wilson Professor of Government at Williams College and an influential scholar on world affairs in the inter-war period (he was also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations during the 1930s), released the fourth edition of his monumental book, International Politics. Originally published in 1933, this new edition elaborated on the developments of World War II, the political upheavals in India and China, and the creation of the United Nations. Regarding the freshly organized global body headquartered in New York City, Professor Schuman was frank: “The United Nations Organization is the League of Nations in a new guise.”

Schuman was critical of “collective security” where nations jointly acted as international police without a higher government standard. He viewed this as politically unworkable. However, he did see an alternative: “...there can be stable and enduring peace only through world government.” This world government would be tasked with international law “enforceable on individuals and to keep peace among States.” It would also be given the authority to tax and impose its standards through judicial action.

Alas, Schuman wrote; “...such a step is apparently blocked by the stubborn devotion of men and women everywhere to their tribal gods and by their ignorance, suspicion, and fear...”

        - Frederick L. Schuman, International Politics: The Destiny of the Western State System (McGraw-Hill, 1948), p.327, 339.

1948: In 1948, a Soviet dominated World Congress of Intellectuals for Peace was held in Wroclaw, Poland. This meeting birthed the “International Liaison Committee of Intellectuals” who, in turn, sponsored a “World Peace Congress” in 1949; that year the name was changed to the World Peace Council. Over the decades the World Peace Council has been a supporter of internationalism, hosting conferences and organizing peace movements to oppose Western “war mongering” and imperialism.

“World peace” was and is the stated aim; cloaked in a Soviet-style worldview. During the Korean War the work of the World Peace Council seemed to suggest an alternative to the United Nations, and in the early 1950s the WPC claimed that hundreds of millions of signatures were attached to its “peace appeal” campaigns. Today, the WPC cooperates with UNESCO and other United Nations agencies, and WPC groups are operating around the world - including Canada and the United States, and throughout Europe.

Complete and general disarmament, military base closures, and global security have all been part of the WPC “world peace” platform.

1949: In California, Alan Cranston led a World Federalist lobbying effort aimed at Democrats and Republicans. The result was a California House Resolution for a US Constitutional convention with the sole purpose of amending the Constitution “to expedite and insure the participation of the United States in a world federal government.”

This same year, US Congressional Resolution 64 was introduced and concurrently placed in the Senate as SCR 56. It was sponsored by 22 Senators and 111 Representatives. It read in part,

“ should be a fundamental objective of the foreign policy of the United States to support and strengthen the United Nations and to seek its development into a world preserve peace and prevent aggression through the enactment, interpretation and enforcement of world law.”

     - For more on these two Resolution, see The Power Puzzle: A Compilation of Documents and Resources on Global Governance (Edited by Carl Teichrib, downloadable in the membership section of

1949: The Altus Times-Democrat reported,

“Announcement that Russia has the secret of the atomic bomb has inspired amazing grass roots support in the U.S. behind the world government idea.

...In small towns all over the country organizations are suddenly being formed to support the national groups which are pushing for some kind of a united states of the world. The four leading organizations are the Atlantic Union Committee, United World Federalists, United Nations Association and the Citizens Commission for United Nations Reform.”

Former Supreme Court Justice Owen J. Roberts was the president of the Atlantic Union. He argued for world government based on a union of Atlantic democracies with a superior military position; “...we would find ourselves in possession of 90 per cent of the world’s naval power and the question of military bases would be enormously simplified.”

      - Douglas Larsen, “World Government Moves Gains Backing,” The Altus Times-Democrat, October 24, 1949.

1949: The Quakers - American Friends Service Committee - produced a report titled The United States and the Soviet Union. World government, and all this implies, was the final recommendation.

A world of sovereign states cannot hope to attain peace, security, or welfare while its members are relying on their own effort and their own military power for security. Substantial international organization is necessary to translate the problem of security from terms of preparation for war to terms of police action under law... Mere statements of loyalty to the United Nations are not sufficient.”

“We believe the United States should take the initiative in the United Nations in a new, long-range effort to bring about... the universal elimination of national armaments down to levels necessitated solely by considerations of internal tranquility... There is, we believe, in the international community sufficient wisdom and good faith to make possible the international control of atomic energy and the progressive elimination of national armaments.”

“If the world is to be freed from the recurring threats of armed conflict, the way must be found, slowly and patiently, to some form of inclusive world organization whose authority transcends that of the member states. Such a world government must grow. It should be the cornerstone of United States policy an the constant endeavor of all United States citizens to aid and encourage that growth.”

    - American Friends Service Committee, The United States and the Soviet Union: Some Quaker Proposals for Peace (Yale University Press, 1949), pp.30, 34-35, 37.

1949: The North Atlantic Treaty was signed and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization came into existence. Known also as the Atlantic Alliance, NATO formed itself as a collective security body originally linking Belgium, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Iceland, Italy, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Canada, and the United States.

NATO was created within the framework of the United Nations Charter, Article 51 - the right of nations to form associations for collective defense. The North Atlantic Treaty affirms this UN connection in the Preamble; “The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”

Article 1 reads;

The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”

An article in The Pittsburgh Press made an interesting observation:

“...after the North Atlantic Pact was approved on Tuesday, several ‘world government’ resolutions were introduced in Congress. But did you notice the strength that was behind them - in numbers and in prestige? This is no crackpot movement. It is backed by some of the best minds, who see in it the only permanent cure for the constant fear of war and the atom bomb.

...This world government would have sufficient power to force all nations to disarm and stay disarmed. It would have a world police force, armed with the most modern weapons, to keep the peace. It would have the power to go into any nation and nab an individual (like Hitler) who was kicking up a fuss that might lead to war.”

    - On North Atlantic Pact/Congress, see Gilbert Love, “World Government,” The Pittsburgh Press, July 30, 1949.

1949: Nobel Peace Prize recipient Lord Boyd Orr, the former head of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, pledged his $22,000 prize to promote world government.

1950: The Uniting For Peace Resolution (Res. 377) was adopted by the United Nations. This Resolution was meant to shift the authority for collection action to the UN General Assembly if the Security Council was deadlocked. Res 377...

“Resolves that if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in any case were there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate recommendations to Members for collective measures, including in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression the use of armed force when necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

Uniting For Peace invited Member States to determine military assistance levels, maintain trained elements that could be mobilized into a United Nations force unit, and established a Collective Measures Committee to develop the technical methods “which might be used to maintain and strengthen international peace and security in accordance with... the Charter.” This included collective self-defense and regional arrangements.

Resolution 377 was introduced by the United States in an attempt to block Soviet/UN activities as it related to the Korean War. Uniting For Peace also played a legal/diplomatic role in other conflict events such as Suez, and it granted the General Assembly the ability to call an “Emergency Special Session.”

Advocates of 377, however, have been historically disappointed in that it failed to move the UN towards a response capability that was effective and permanently empowering - i.e., a true World Force.

NOTE: In what is being called the “Battle for September” (the issue of Palestinian statehood to be addressed by the United Nations this fall), it has been publicly announced that if the UN Security Council cannot come to an agreement on statehood, then the authority to deal with the matter will be moved to the General Assembly under Resolution 377.

1950-1953: A military conflict erupts between North and South Korea, devastating the Korean Peninsula and altering the geo-strategic landscape. Approximately 2.5 million civilian casualties resulted by the July 27, 1953 armistice.

The backdrop to this war was a complex and deadly matrix: the Sino-Japanese War, the Chinese Civil War, the Pacific/Asiatic theatre of World War II - including Russia’s Manchuria campaign. At the 1945 Moscow Conference the fate of the Korean people was bound by the Foreign Ministers of the Soviet Union, the United States, and Great Britain (without Korean input). The Peninsula was therefore divided, with troops from the US in the South and Soviet forces in the North. In 1947 the United States successfully moved the Korean question to the newly formed United Nations, and the General Assembly approved the creation of the United Nations Temporary Commission on Korea.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, North Korea, and the Republic of Korea - South Korea - were formally declared in 1948. That year the Soviets withdrew, and the Americans followed suit in 1949. War broke out between North and South on June 25, 1950.

Backing North Korea was China and Russia, and the South by the United States through a United Nations’ 15 member alliance - including military elements from Great Britain, Canada, Australia, Turkey, France, Greece, and Belgium. However, American units comprised the bulk of the UN forces.

“Numerically, the United States contributed 50.32 percent of the ground forces, 85.89 percent of the naval forces, and 93.38 percent of the air force. The Republic of Korea contributed 40.10 percent, 7.45 percent, and 5.65 percent respectively, and fifteen United Nations Members other than the United States the remainder. These figures do not cover important contributions of supporting assistance, such as medical supplies, hospital units and transportation facilities made by other Members, including Denmark, India, Norway and Sweden which did not send armed forces.”

In a book published through the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Leland Goodrich wrote,

“The lessons of this experience should be of value in case it is found possible to initiate similar action in the future, either through the Security Council or through the General Assembly under the ‘Uniting for Peace’ resolution. It is clear, however, that any use of force following the Korean pattern requires the strong and vigorous leadership of one or more major powers; it must also be recognized that once action of this kind is initiated in a situation where the interests of major powers are in conflict, great restraint is required to prevent that ‘police action’ from developing into a major war.”

     - Leland Goodrich, “Efforts to Establish International Police Force Down to 1950,” an Appendix to A United Nations Peace Force, by William R. Frye (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1957). The “numbers” quote is found on pages 188-189, the “lessons” quote on page 194.

1950: Top American banker and advisor to Washington’s political elites, James P. Warburg (a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and later a founder of the Institute for Policy Studies), published his book Faith, Purpose and Power, advocating World Government with “world law enforcement.” In Washington DC, Congressional and Senate hearings on “world government” as the basic objective of US foreign policy were held. This included debates over the creation of an Atlantic Union.

      - James P. Warburg, Faith, Purpose and Power: A Plea for a Positive Policy (Farrar, Straus and Company, 1950).

1950: Seven nations sign the Treaty of Joint Defense and Economic Cooperation Between the States of the Arab League. This treaty forms an Arabic military and collective security alliance, including a “Permanent Military Commission composed of representatives of the General Staffs of the armies of the Contracting States.” Signatory nations: Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Yemen, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.

The Preamble reads in part: “to cooperate for the realization of mutual defense and the maintenance of security and peace according to the principles of both the Arab League Pact and the United Nations Charter...”

1950: Grenville Clark published his book, A Plan For Peace, calling for a “limited world government” through a revision of the UN Charter, including a plan for staged and general national disarmament, and the subsequent rise of a United Nations Peace Force. “It should be clearly understood that a United Nations, so remodeled, would be in fact a genuine world government.”

      - Grenville Clark, A Plan for Peace (Harper and Brothers, 1950), p.44.


1950: Albert Einstein suggested that the United States and Soviet Union place all nuclear weapons in the hands of an international authority, that all nations disarm, and that a world government be established.

     - “Atom Bomb Disarming Einstein Aim: Urges Russia, U.S. Surrender All To World Government,” The Windsor Daily Star, June 19, 1950.

1951: The Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty was signed. Better known as ANZUS, this military alliance binds the three nations into a security partnership for the Pacific region. Like SEATO (see page 17), this alliance was originally viewed as a counter to the domino effect of communism in Southeast Asia. ANZUS continues today, and was reaffirmed in the 2010 Wellington Declaration. The Preamble to the ANZUS founding document confirms “faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.” Article 1 states,

The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international disputes in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”

1951: Pope Pius XII addressed a Vatican-based meeting of the World Movement for World Federal Government.

“Your movement, Gentleman, has the task of creating an effective political organization of the world. There is nothing more in keeping with the traditional doctrines of the Church... An organization of this nature must, therefore, be set up, even if only to end the competitive rearming of nations...”

In his speech the Pope acknowledged the possibility of such a system “infecting itself with the deadly germs of mechanical totalitarianism.” Therefore, he encouraged them to create a world federal government around “a sane social philosophy.”

Ending his talk, Pius XII praised the World Movement for World Federal Government and its dedication to the idea of a world political authority:

“There, Gentlemen, is a vast field of work, study and action. You have understood this and looked it squarely in the face; you have the courage to give yourself to this cause. We congratulate you. We would express to you Our wishes for your entire success...”

   - For the complete speech, see The Power Puzzle: A Compilation of Documents and Resources on Global Governance (Edited by Carl Teichrib, downloadable in the membership section of, pp.21-22.

1952: The Committee on Legal Problem of the United Nations produced a short report on a burning legal question: “Should the Laws of War apply to United Nations enforcement action?” After weighing pros and cons of a UN police apparatus, the committee stated the following:

“In the present circumstances, then, the proper answer would seem to be, for the time being, that the United nations should not feel bound by all the laws of war, but should select such of the laws of war as may seem to fit its purposes (e.g., prisoners of war, belligerent occupation), adding such others as may be needed, and rejecting those which seem incompatible with its purposes. We think it beyond doubt that the United Nations, representing practically all the nations of the earth, has the right to make such decisions.”

     - Committee on Study of the Legal Problems of the United Nation, “Should the Laws of War Apply to United Nations Enforcement Action?” Reprinted in The Strategy of World Order, Volume 3 - The United Nations (World Law Fund, 1966), p75.

1952: The United Nations Disarmament Commission (UNDC) was established. A number of plans were proposed for the work of the UNDC, including a French suggestion that the new organization should involve itself with, “Disclosure and verification of all armaments, including atomic armaments, and of all armed forces...”

      - The United Nations and Disarmament, 1945-1970 (United Nations, 1970), p.45.


1953: A compilation of US-based polls from 1939 to 1953 indicated that American citizens overwhelmingly supported the idea of a world body establishing “an international force to maintain world peace.”

      - William R. Frye, A United Nations Peace Force (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1957), p.67.

1953: US President Eisenhower gives his “Atoms For Peace” speech to the United Nations. This was a call for the United Nations to act as the primary agency for international control of nuclear materials, and to pursue peaceful ends with said materials. Eisenhower’s speech set the stage for an “Atoms For Peace” philosophy, opening the door for peaceful nuclear development in other nations. However, Atoms For Peace proved naive; India’s first nuclear bomb was a direct result, produced with Canadian-based reactor technology and US-based heavy water under the guise of peaceful atomic usage.

1953/54: A friendship and military alliance between Turkey, Greece, and Yugoslavia was drafted in 1953 and approved in 1954. Although this alliance quickly disintegrated, it constitutes an interesting piece of collective security history; Here, two NATO nations - Greece and Turkey (both joined NATO in 1952), formally aligned themselves with Communist Yugoslavia. The Balkan Pact was briefly viewed as a way to indirectly link Yugoslavia to NATO.

Like other collective security systems, this one placed itself within the framework of the United Nations. The Preamble reaffirmed faith in the Charter of the United Nations and Article 1 of the Balkan Pact states,

“The Contracting Parties undertake, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, to settle by peaceful means any international dispute in which they may be involved, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”

Another drama associated with the Balkan Pact was that Turkey, Greece, and Great Britain as NATO members were intimately involved in the ongoing Cyprus affair, which warranted a United Nations buffer zone in 1964 under a UN peace force (later a Greek Cypriote coup and a Turkish invasion would take place). Speaking on the Cyprus problem from the perspective of the 1950s, Richard Stebbins writes,

“From the point of view of Western interests the Cyprus quarrel was especially distressing in that all of the protagonists were by rights members of the Western, democratic, North Atlantic community. Most if not all of the 400,000 Greek Cypriotes wanted independence from one NATO member, Great Britain, for the sole purpose of joining their destinies with those of another NATO member, Greece, whose government ardently seconded this aspiration. Turkey, the third member of the triangle, was likewise a member of NATO and, in addition, was linked with Greece in the Balkan Pact of 1954; yet the Turks were even more adamant than the British in insisting that the status quo in Cyprus must be maintained and that the island must under no circumstances be allowed to go to Greece.”

     - Richard P. Stebbins, The United States in World Affairs, 1956 (Harper/Council on Foreign Relations, 1957), p.101.

1954: The Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty was signed, creating the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), a collective defense alliance linking New Zealand, Pakistan, the Philippines, France, Australia, Great Britain, Thailand, and the United States. Established as an anti-communist block for Southeast Asia, SEATO eventually folded in 1977 due to internal struggles and the failure of members to fully participate. The Preamble reaffirms faith in the United Nations and Article 1 declares that members will “refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”

1955: British Minister of Defence, Harold Macmillan, endorsed a comprehensive national disarmament platform and the subsequent empowerment of an international authority.

“Members may say that this is elevating the United Nations, or whatever may be the authority, into something like world government; be it so, it is none the worse for that. In the long run it is the only way out for mankind.”

     - See, A World Security Authority? (The Conservative Political Centre, 1958), p.5.

1955: San Francisco, California hosted the Tenth Anniversary of the Signing of the UN Charter. World dignitaries gathered for this historic event, including US President Eisenhower, who explained that the UN was “fashioned to be the supreme instrument of world peace” and pledged his country will be “thus loyal, thus dedicated” to the world body. Paul-Henri Spaak, the Minister of Foreign Affairs for Belgium and a key figure promoting European integration, made the appeal for world peace “based on general and controlled disarmament” - “Only within the United Nations should the general security be ensured; within the United Nations alone can it be ensured.” Soviet delegates spoke loftily about general and complete disarmament. Other nations too related how the UN needs to be viewed as the primary vehicle for international peace.

       - See, Tenth Anniversary of the Signing of the United Nations Charter: Proceedings of the Commemorative Meetings (United Nations, 1955).

1955: The Warsaw Pact was birthed (it folded in 1991). Officially titled the Warsaw Treaty Organization of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance, this agreement was the Soviet-based collective security organ that paralleled NATO. It originally included: Albania, Poland, Hungary, East Germany, Bulgaria, Czechoslovak Republic, Romania, and the Soviet Union. The Preamble to the Pact explains the goal to be “a system of European collective security based on the participation of all European states irrespective of their social and political systems, which would make it possible to unite their efforts in safeguarding the peace of Europe...”

Like NATO, the Warsaw Security Pact bridges itself with the United Nations. This can be found in the Preamble; “...guided by the objects and principles of the Charter of the United Nations Organization.”

Article 1 of the Warsaw Pact says,

“The Contracting Parties undertake, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations Organization, to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force, and to settle their international disputes peacefully and in such manner as will not jeopardize international peace and security.”

Article 4 explains,

“In the event of armed attack in Europe on one or more of the Parties to the Treaty by any state or group of states, each of the Parties to the Treaty, in the exercise of its right to individual or collective self-defence in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations Organization, shall immediately, either individually or in agreement with other Parties to the Treaty, come to the assistance of the state or states attacked with all such means as it deems necessary, including armed force. The Parties to the Treaty shall immediately consult concerning the necessary measures to be taken by them jointly in order to restore and maintain international peace and security.

Measures taken on the basis of this Article shall be reported to the Security Council in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations Organization. These measures shall be discontinued immediately the Security Council adopts the necessary measures to restore and maintain international peace and security.”

1955: The Baghdad Pact was formed as a collective security agreement between Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan, and Great Britain. It was also known as the Middle East Treaty Organization and the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO). While the United States was involved in establishing CENTO it did not join the organization. CENTO was problematic in many ways; Internally it failed as an alliance, and externally it fed anti-Western sentiments in India and Egypt. The organization closed in 1979.

The Baghdad Pact links itself to Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, and gives recognition to the Arab League Treaty of Joint Defense and Economic Cooperation.

1956: The International Atomic Energy Agency was created as an organ of the United Nations; nuclear weapons issues and the peaceful development of atomic energy fall under its umbrella. It was originally meant to be a type of international “nuclear bank.”

1956: The Suez Crisis pitted Israel against Egypt. Great Britain and France were direct participants, with England’s involvement in Egypt/Sudan and the Suez Cannel spanning a number of decades. The United States and the Soviet Union played important, yet behind-the-scenes roles in the conflict.

As nations mobilized forces and engaged in action, sent war supplies, imposed embargoes and expelled nationals, the United Nations faced a spiraling situation. On November 2, Canada’s Minister of External Affairs, Lester B. Pearson, unveiled a resolution to the General Assembly,

“Requests, as a matter of priority, the Secretary-General to submit to it within forty-eight hours a plan for the setting up, with the consent of the nations concerned, of an emergency international United Nations force to secure and supervise the cessation of hostilities...”

The result was the creation of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF). A Carnegie report noted that this resolution marked “an endorsement in principle and hence the first step toward a UN police force.” Later on, Lester Pearson stated the following,

“As I saw it, the United Nations must move quickly to set up some kind of international police force which could come between the combatants, end the fighting, and prevent rash action by the Assembly against France and Britain - with all the regrettable consequences that might follow.

...I discussed the idea of such a move with Dag Hammarskjold who was at first doubtful about its timing and practicability... As soon as possible I put forward a resolution that led to the United Nations Emergency Force.

There is a time in an international crisis when all are so frightened of what might happen that they will accept many things that they would not have even contemplated before the crisis; and indeed are unlikely to contemplate a week after it has ended. So at the time it was introduced my resolution for a police force was greeted with almost unanimous acclaim.”

In the UN Assembly general debate held in December, various national delegates sounded approvals for a permanent, standing United Nations military force. The Suez-based UN Emergency Force had added a new sense of energy to the idea of a global police system.

Greece: “Progressive disarmament... creation of a United Nations police force, capable of ensuring international order.”

Iran: Recognized that the Suez UNEF isn’t yet the “international army which was envisaged by the Charter.” However, the UNEF “marks a great step forward and will make it easier, later on, to organize that international army.”

Laos: “We hope that it [UNEF] is only the first step, and that this nucleus of a world police force will develop into an effective instrument of action, a real armed force in the service of peace.”

Norway: Suggested the establishment of a standing UN force to act as an “international fire brigade.”

    - For the Carnegie, William Frye, A United Nations Peace Force (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1957), p.7.

    - For the Pearson quote, see Lester B. Pearson, Peace in the Family of Man: The Reith Lectures, 1968 (Oxford University Press, 1969), pp. 14-15.

    - For the UN Assembly debate, see Frye, A United Nations Peace Force, pp. 68-71.

1957: William R. Frye, working under the auspice of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, authored A United Nations Peace Force.

This book outlines the history of the 1956 UN Emergency Force, and then examines the feasibility of a durable, UN-led international police system. In many respects it’s an exploratory report, asking questions and offering food-for-thought - including the pros and cons of different ideas, like granting the UN an arsenal of nuclear weapons or giving it a 500,000-man military force. Both suggestions were floated and then critically challenged by Mr. Frye.

The outcome of this book, which had a wide circulation among foreign policy experts, was a recommendation that the UN establish a “small, permanent peace force, or the machinery for one...” In so doing, the possibility exists for a further evolution in world order.

“The force, in short, might become an instrument of peaceful change. Over a period of generations, as concepts of sovereignty were modified and the nature of he cold war changed, a UN peace force could grow to have a collective security function. Or it could become the backbone of an arms-control system. It could evolve in many directions, depending on the growth and needs of the world society.”

Mr. Frye was assisted by a special advisory committee made up of;

     - Harding F. Bancroft: US Representative to the UN Collective Measures Committee.

     - Philip C. Jessup: Professor of International Law and Diplomacy at Columbia University, and active in the early establishment of the United Nations.

     - Lt. Col. Amos A. Jordan: Head of the Department of Social Sciences at the US Military Academy, West Point.

     - Frank C. Nash: Former US Assistant Secretary of Defense.

     - Charles P. Noyes: Consultant to the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and former member of the US Mission to the United Nations.

     - Joseph E. Johnson: President of the Carnegie Endowment of International Peace and former Chief of the US State Department Division of International Security Affairs. Johnson was also a member of the World Peace Foundation and the American secretary of the Bilderberg meetings.

Appendices were added to Frye’s work - a series of mini-reports making up half the book - and these reports detail the challenges and possibilities of an international police force. One paper, “Military Aspects of a Permanent UN Force,” envisioned this as a “lightly armed infantry Brigade of approximately 7,000 men,” with duties including “executive surveillance, patrol, riot control, and police type duties,  and should be capable of defending itself for a limited time if attacked by small, organized or irregular hostile forces...” Another contributor wrestled with the creation of a United Nations “Guard” and “Legion.”

Contributors to the Appendices were Paul H. Nitze (former Director of the Policy Planing Staff of the Department of State), Richard L. Plunkett (Ford Foundation Fellow), Lt. Col. Charles A. Cannon (Faculty member of the Department of Social Sciences at West Point), Leland M. Goodrich (Member of the International Secretariat, UN Conference on International Organization), and Stephen M. Schwebel (International lawyer associated with the New York law-firm White & Case). Two of Frye’s Advisory Committee members also contributed papers.

With the exception of Plunkett and Cannon, all of the Committee members and contributors - including Mr. Frye - were members of the Council on Foreign Relations.

     - William R. Frye, A United Nations Peace Force (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace/Oceana Publications, 1957).

1957: Two United States Senators and two Representatives introduced a Congressional resolution calling for an ongoing United Nations military force. “Such a force should be composed of units made available by members of the United Nations: Provided, that no such units should be accepted from permanent members of the Security Council.”

1958: The British Government’s White Paper on Defence states: “The ultimate aim must be comprehensive disarmament by all nations, coupled with comprehensive inspection and control by a world authority.”

Following up on this White Paper, ten Conservative Members of Parliament published a report titled, A World Security Authority? A three-stage process was advocated to achieve total disarmament and the creation of a World Security Authority, complete with nuclear weapons.

“The whole process of establishing a World Security Authority and of national disarmament, summarized below, might be expected to take at least a decade.

Preparatory Phase

A. On ratification of the agreement, the controlling body of the World Security Authority would be set up.

B. The controlling body of the Authority would establish a World Police Force with command, staff, supply services, signals and intelligence personnel directly recruited by the World Security Authority...It is to be expected that recruits to the World Police Force would be drawn mainly from existing national forces.

C. A World Inspectorate would be set up at the same time...

D. The directly recruited nucleus of the World Police Force would continue to grow and would begin to include operational units. At the same time the principle of functional specialization would be introduced among the seconded national contingents. Guards from the Force would be stationed as a tripwire at all airfields and launching sites; but the Authority would not at this stage dispose of the means of delivery of nuclear weapons, in the hands of either directly recruited or seconded units.

E. The World Police Force would, at a fairly late stage of the Preparatory Phase, acquire the means of delivery of strategic nuclear weapons and would train units to deliver them.

F. The World Police Force would cease to grow when it had reached the strength of a great power, i.e. some three million men together with appropriate nuclear weapons.

G. The Executive of the World Security Authority would prepare a detailed plan for the Disarmament Phase...

Disarmament Phase

H. Once the agreement of the great powers and of the required proportion of other nations had been obtained, national disarmament would be pushed ahead as rapidly as possible.

I. The Disarmament Phase would nevertheless take several years...

Phase of Full Operation

J. The Phase of Full Operation would begin when the World Security Authority had attained unquestioned military superiority and could thereafter maintain and enforce the disarmament agreement.

K. National disarmament would continue down to the levels required for internal security, to be defined in the agreement.

L. The strength of the World Police Force could then be gradually reduced. It would have to retain its nuclear weapons as a protection against surprise attack with similar weapons which might have been concealed from the International Inspectorate.”

       - A World Security Authority? (The Conservative Political Centre, 1958). For the White Paper quote see page 7. For the three phase outline see pages 16-17. The ten Conservative Members of Parliament who produced this report were: C. Wilson Black, A.D. Dodds-Parker, J.G. Foster, R. Reader Harris, John Hay, Vice-Admiral John Hughes-Hallett, Martin Maddan, I.J. Pitman, David Price, and John Tilney.

1958: Grenville Clark and Louis B. Sohn publish their book, World Peace Through World Law, which recommends the creation of a World Police Force and a “World Disarmament and World Development Organization.” World Peace Through World Law soon became a classic in World Federalist circles.

1959: At the United Nations, the Soviet Union released its “Program of General and Complete Disarmament,” which advocated that nations demilitarize in a three-stage process. In the first phase, nations would embark on a controlled scale-down. The second stage would witness a dismantling of all military bases on foreign territory and the abolishment of armed forces retained by States. Stage three would see the liquidation of all war materials, the cessation of war-related research activities, the termination of military training and the abolishment of War ministries and General staffs - “To control the implementation of the measures of general and complete disarmament, an international control body is to be set up.”

Nations could retain a small police or militia force equipped to maintain internal order.

In October, Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, responded to the Soviet recommendation by requesting that the UN begin to study “a system of international and domestic police forces to preserve peace in event of total world disarmament.” Lodge requested “detailed answers” to three questions.

1) What type of international police force should be established to preserve international peace and security?

2) What principles of international law should govern the use of such a force?

3) What internal security forces, in precise terms, would be required by nations of the world if existing armaments are abolished?

   - “Declaration of the Soviet Government on General and Complete Disarmament,” The Soviet Stand on Disarmament (Crosscurrents Press, 1962).

   - For the role of Lodge, see “US Urges UN to Devise World Police System,” Toledo Blade, October 14, 1959.

1959: A report titled The World Organisation was circulated at the annual meeting of the United World Federalists. This document recommended carving the planet into administrative zones and regional blocks, and placing these entities under a robust World Organization - a replacement for the too limited United Nations. Once in power, the World Organization would “set up a directorate composed of...”

1 World Director

8 Zone Directors

5 Commanders

51 Regional Directors

To ensure world order, a “World Security System” would be commissioned; including, 49 divisions of Garrison Troops and 9 divisions of Field Force Troops. Sea and Air forces would be reallocated to the World Organization, and each Land, Sea, and Air organ would have its own Commander. Likewise, a “Research and Development Security” arm, under its own Commander, would coordinate scientific and technical developments as it related to enhancing the military function of the World Organization.

This proposal, and many similar plans circulated by world government lobby groups, demonstrate the internationalist worldview and the collectivist approach to world order.

NOTE: The UWF later became the World Federalist Association; an influential, US-based world government lobby group. In 2003 the WFA merged with its sister organization, the Campaign for UN Reform, and changed its name to Citizens for Global Solutions (CGS). Over the decades the UWF, WFA, and now CGS have worked with the United Nations, various think tanks, and other internationally minded organizations to promote global governance. Historic ties also exist with the US State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency (Cord Meyer was the first WFA President and a noted CIA personality). Moreover, CGS rubs shoulders with diplomats and foreign policy players, and donates money to US political campaign runners who are sympathetic to CGS objectives.

1959: Noted British philosopher, Bertrand Russell, calls for a scientific-based world government in his book, The Future of Science. Recognizing such a regime would be tyrannical, he nevertheless accepted this on the balance that benefits would be derived and liberty eventually incorporated.

“I believe that, owing to men’s folly, a world-government will only be established by force, and will therefore be at first cruel and despotic. But I believe that it is necessary for the preservation of a scientific civilization, and that, if once realized, it will gradually give rise to the other conditions of a tolerable existence.”

      - Bertrand Russell, The Future of Science (Philosophical Library, 1959), p.34.

See Part 1 here

Part 3 of “One World, One Force” will be posted later in 2011.

Carl Teichrib is editor of Forcing Change, a monthly online publication detailing the changes and challenges impacting the Western world. /p>

FC is a monthly, online publication dedicated to documenting and analyzing the socio-religious transformations now sweeping our Western world.
Forcing Change is a membership subscription service, with an annual fee of $54.95 US. Membership in Forcing Change allows access to the full range of FC publications, including special reports, audio and media presentations, FC back issues, expert documents, and more. FC receives neither government funding nor the financial backing of any other institutions; rather, FC operates solely on subscription/membership support. To learn more about Forcing Change, including member benefits, go to

Note from Berit: May I suggest you subscribe to this great online magazine. This vital information will help us prepare for the  challenges we will be facing in the years ahead. 

Benefits of Forcing Change membership...

  • Access to every issue of Forcing Change, our fully documented monthly publication.
  • Membership-only admittance to a large assortment of source documents, including many rare items, all in downloadable PDF.
  • Access to specialized e-reports such as The Power Puzzle: A Compilation of Documents on Global Governance.
  • Direct access to media files, reading lists, audio features, and more!

Membership in Forcing Change allows access to the full range of FC publications, including e-reports, audio and media presentations, Forcing Change back issues, downloadable expert documents, and more. FC receives neither government funding nor the financial backing of any other institutions; rather, Forcing Change operates solely on subscription/membership support. To learn more about Forcing Change, including membership benefits, go to

Forcing Change

P.O. Box 31

Plumas, Manitoba, Canada


Index to previous articles by Carl Teichrib