Volume 6, Issue 2, February 2012

One World, One Force:

Part III - Swords into Plowshares, 1960-1969

By Carl Teichrib, Chief Editor




Index to FC's previous reports


Posted 3-14-12


Emphasis added throughout

The “One World, One Force” article series is meant to demonstrate the longevity of a big idea: That a world political system or “global governance” arrangement will inevitably demand some type of world military or police force. After all, world law requires enforcement to ensure world peace. [But what will it cost us to live under such "world laws" and military enforcements? Our freedom to raise our children? To follow God?] 

Earlier time-line essays in this series were published last year in the May and June editions of Forcing Change - roughly detailing the first half of the Twentieth Century. If you recall, I briefly outlined the role of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in the May issue, for at that time NATO was using the R2P concept as the basis for its Libyan mission. And R2P, as we’ll see in an upcoming article in this series, fits hand-in-glove with the “big idea” of global governance.

This article (Part 3) focuses on one decade; the 1960s. During this period “global disarmament” was floated as the key to “world peace.” It was to be the decade when we started to beat swords into plowshares. This was symbolized in a bronze statue presented to the United Nations by the Soviet Union in 1959: “Swords Into Plowshares”. And yet, as we dig into this high-minded ideal, it’s clear that “global disarmament” was part of a larger drama. While many policy experts were critical of utopian “world government” models, other leading elites were working to empower the United Nations toward that goal.

One thing to keep in mind is the period backdrop: The 1960s was a time of expanding conflict zones in Africa and Asia, Cold War tensions and proxy wars, high-stakes espionage dramas, social strife and cultural transformation, intense propaganda campaigns, political unrest, “guns and butter” policies, and a culture of fear. Disarmament talks and nuclear limitation negotiations were part of strategic chess moves, and advances in weapons and communication technologies were opening new possibilities for battle-space control - and the management of civil unrest.

In a real sense, the 1960s sound a lot like today, and there are interesting parallels. Moreover, many of the movements that defined culture and international affairs during that decade have provided the feedstock for our present age. Disarmament and global governance is one interlocked example; In the last four years there has been renewed interest in the strategic disarmament process that sprang from the 60s, and many within the current US administration fed out of the radical intellectual trough of that period or the extended buffet of intelligentsia that spilled over into the 70s and 80s. But let’s be clear: This is far from being a solely American phenomena. Elites from Moscow to Brussels to Beijing know how this game is played too.

With all of this said, I have a suspicion that we are coming to a time when “disarmament” will be viewed as an important step toward global governance - “peace, peace,” the world will bleat. And wolves in nice wool suits will give us what we want.

Part III, however, focuses on one decade; the 1960s. During this period “global disarmament” was floated as the key to “world peace.” It was to be the decade when we started to beat swords into plowshares. This was symbolized in a bronze statue presented to the United Nations by the Soviet Union in 1959; “Swords Into Plowshares” (pictured on page 1). And yet, as we dig into this high-minded ideal, it’s clear that “global disarmament” was part of a larger drama. While many policy experts were critical of utopian “world government” models, other leading elites were working to empower the United Nations toward that goal.

Who’s Who?

Here are brief bios on a few of the Western-based elites encountered in the disarmament agenda of the 1960s. Note: Most of this information isn’t specifically dated. Therefore, being a “member” doesn’t necessarily mean the individual is still part of a particular group (and some are deceased). Other data may be found in the timeline below.

 John J. McCloy:

- President of the World Bank, 1947-1949.

- Military Governor for the U.S. Zone in Germany.

- Chairman, Chase Manhattan Bank, 1953-1960.

- Chairman, Ford Foundations, 1958-1965. -

- Hon. Chair, Atlantic Institute, 1966-1968.

- Chair, Council on Foreign Relations, 1953-1970.


 Lincoln P. Bloomfield:

- Member, Council on Foreign Relations.

- Rockefeller Fellow.

- Staff, MIT Center for International Studies.

- Dir. Global Issues, National Security Council.

- Asst. Sec. of State for Political-Military Affairs.


 Richard A. Falk:

- Past advisor, World Federalist Institute.

- Past member, American Movement for World Government.

- Member, World Order Models Project. -

- Member, Council on Foreign Relations.

- Chair, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. - Member, CFR.

- United Nations Special Rapporteur for Palestine.


 Thomas C. Schelling:

 - Past Foreign Policy Advisor, White House.

 - Former member, Office of the Director for Mutual Security.

 - Past negotiator, European Payments Union.

 - Past member, RAND Corporation.

 - Past President, American Economic Association.

 - Founder, Center for Arms Control.

 - Member, Council on Foreign Relations.

Arthur I. Waskow:

- Senior Fellow, Peace Research Institute

.- Fellow, Institute for Policy Studies.

- Fellow, Public Resource Center.

 -  Founder, The Shalom Center.

- Named, “Wisdom Keeper” by UN in 1996.


Christian Herter:

- US Secretary of State, 1959-61

- US Trade Representative, 1962-66.

- Hon. Director, Atlantic Council.

- Member, Council on Foreign Relations.


Louis B. Sohn:

 - Drafted parts of the United Nations Charter.

- Co-author, World Peace Through World Law.

- Delegate, UN Law of the Sea.

- Consultant, World Association of Parliamentarians for World Government.


Kenneth E. Boulding:

- Cofounder of General Systems Theory.

- Past Pres. American Economic Association.

- Past President, American Assoc. for the Advancement of Science.

- Founder of the Peace Studies field.

- Past Pres. International Studies Association.


Richard J. Barnet:

 - Former State Department employee under John McCloy in the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA).

 - Co-founder, Institute for Policy Studies.  

 - Fellow, Harvard’s Russian Research Center

 - Member, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Timeline 1960-1969

Note: For those readers who know about the infamous document, Freedom From War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World, released by the US State Department in 1961, the first few items in this timeline will be an eye-opener.

1960: One year before (1959), Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev gave a speech to the United Nations General Assembly calling for global disarmament under the strict control of an international body. On June 2, 1960, the Soviet Union released its official proposal titled the Basic Provisions of a Treaty on General and Complete Disarmament. The idea was straightforward; implement a three-stage general and complete disarmament program that would progressively disarm nations and establish an international control organization. Here are a few of the provisions.

First Stage:

- All means of nuclear weapon delivery would be disbanded, including strategic rockets, surface vessels and submarines, and military aircraft and artillery with such capability.

- All troops would be removed from foreign lands. All foreign-held military bases would be shut down.

- An international control group accountable to the UN Security Council and General Assembly would oversee this first stage of general disarmament. This Control Council would have inspection teams dispatched to military bases, airfields and ports, and rocket launching sites to oversee the dismantling process and troop withdrawals. Moreover, inspection teams will be unhindered from entering factories and facilities, shipyards, and any other enterprise that may be linked to the weapons industry.

Second Stage:

- Complete prohibition of weapons of mass destruction, including the stockpiling of chemical, biological, and nuclear materials for war purposes.

- Conventional forces would be drastically downsized. “The armed forces of all states shall be reduced to agreed levels... Military expenditures of states shall be reduced accordingly.”

- The Control Council and inspection teams would be granted sweeping authority and have unlimited access to military installations, ports and airfields, and other facilities deemed necessary to ensure disarmament. Furthermore, inspection teams would secure military projects.

Third Stage:

- “The abolition of the armed forces of all states will be completed. States will have at their disposal only strictly limited contingents of police (militia), the size of which will be agreed upon for each country, and which will be equipped with light firearms, for maintaining internal order and ensuring the personal security of citizens.”

- All remaining conventional ammunition and armaments would be destroyed, and all military production would cease.

- “War ministries, general staffs and all military and para-military establishments and organizations will be abolished. All military training for reservists will be terminated.”

- National and private funding of all military programs would be discontinued.

- The Control Council would remain active to ensure nations comply with all disarmament goals; “The Control Council will have the right to send mobile inspection teams to any point or to any establishment in the territory of states.” The control organization will also monitor national police units, their mobilization and activities near borders, and their size based on previously agreed limitations.

- National police and militia units may be called upon to serve under the command of the United Nations Security Council.

On September 23, Khrushchev submitted a statement to the UN General Assembly regarding global disarmament, noting that “world security” would be maintained by the UN Security Council and that the nature of socialism is world peace.

“The new approach to the solution of the [world] disarmament problem stems from the very nature of our country’s socialist system. Vladimir Lenin, the founder of the Soviet state, used to say that disarmament is an ideal of socialism. Indeed, the socialist states do not need armaments for any other purposes except defense against possible attack from the outside and ensuring the preservation of peace throughout the world. The Soviet Armed Forces have not and cannot have any other objectives, for the foreign policy of socialism is a peaceful and humane foreign policy.”

It must be said that the Soviet disarmament campaign was a masterful propaganda stroke. In his 1964 book, Soviet Foreign Propaganda, Frederick Barghoorn put this into perspective,

“Soviet propaganda has been designed to appeal to mass audiences unfamiliar with the technical difficulties involved in such matters as effective inspection and control of either nuclear or conventional disarmament measures...

...in the case of general Soviet peace propaganda, Soviet professions of interest in disarmament are frequently injected into seemingly irrelevant contexts. The purpose of this tactic appears to be to emphasize the Soviet desire to do everything possible to bring the blessings of peace to mankind. Disarmament proposals... lend credence and plausibility to Soviet peace propaganda...

Throughout most of the negotiations and discussions on disarmament the Soviets have combined efforts to stave off possible attacks by foreign powers with clearly agitational tactics. While bargaining shrewdly and tenaciously to preserve advantages and to protect themselves against the consequences of disadvantages, they have for propaganda purposes put forward utopian proposals with the obvious objective of eliciting refusals. They have then denounced those refusing to accept their proposals as obstructionists and even as warmongers.”

By framing the disarmament debate and appealing to the consciousness of liberal Westerners, pacifists and religious organizations - a point made by Barghoorn in his important study - the propaganda of peace became a valuable tool in fermenting animosity toward Western ideals. It also built-up the credibility of United Nations enhancement, particularly in the eyes of Third World leaders aliened with Soviet sentiments and socialist intellectuals in the West. An empowered UN equipped to act as the agent of “word peace” and backed by the power of world socialism, it was believed, could become the mechanism to dislodge “American imperialism.”

Barghoorn reminded his readers how Soviet peace overtures appealed to two seemingly unrelated yet important foreign elements; socialist revolutionaries and commiserative Westerns.

“...all of the Soviet leaders, from Lenin and Trotski through Stalin and Khrushchev, strove in their peace propaganda to appeal both to revolutionaries seeking the overthrow of constitutional democracy and to western businessmen, liberals, pacifists, and the general public whose nondialectic conception of peace was limited to the simple absence of armed conflict.”[1]

Council on Foreign Relations: Taking Itself Seriously

Many organizations and names are mentioned in this timeline. But one underlying entity needs to be mentioned in a special way; the Council on Foreign Relations.

Richard J. Barnet, a name the pops up repeatedly in this essay, joined the CFR in 1969. This is what he had to say about the organization in his book, Roots of War.

“Membership in the Council on Foreign Relations, it should be noted, is a rite of passage for an aspiring national security manager. It is a convenient list of about 1,500 potentially eligible ‘responsible’ and ‘informed’ individuals with reasonably predictable views, temperaments, and associations. Not every member qualifies, to be sure, for an occasional crank is admitted, and in recent years a few symbolic policy critics have actually been recruited, but failure to be asked to be a member of the Council has been regarded for a generation as a presumption of unsuitability for high office in the national security bureaucracy.

The Council takes itself very seriously, and the security procedures invoked for its frequent off-the-record sessions with Chiefs of Naval Operations, Australian Prime Ministers, German Chancellors, French bankers, and presidential assistants are reminiscent of the national security bureaucracy itself. When the Council, which formally takes no position on any issue, decided, or more accurately, a few powerful members of the its board decided, to oppose the escalation of the Vietnam War, it prepared a plan for de-escalation which was received in the State Department with all the pomp reserved for diplomatic messages of foreign governments.”[2]  

1960: US Secretary of State Christian Herter responded to Khrushchev’s call for complete disarmament by creating the State Department’s Disarmament Administration, officially placing disarmament on the policy map. Furthermore, Herter offered a multi-stage perspective. Speaking on the second stage, Herter explained,

“Our objective in this second state should be twofold: First, to create certain universally accepted rules of law which, if followed, would prevent all nations from attacking other nations. Such rules of law should be backed by a world court and by effective means of enforcement - that is, by international armed force.

"Second, to reduce national armed forces, under safeguard and verified arrangements, to the point where no single nation or group of nations could effectively oppose this enforcement of international law by international machinery.”[3]

1960: Five socialist nations (Warsaw Pact) and five Western countries (NATO) formed the Ten Nation Committee through United Nations channels. Meeting in Geneva, the Committee debated the route to complete and general disarmament. Although the Committee met with limited results, partly through the politicizing of how to handle non-aligned nations, it did lay the early groundwork for the eventual creation of the UN-linked Conference on Disarmament.

1960: Through the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Lincoln P. Bloom published his book, The United Nations and U.S. Foreign Policy. Here he laid out his vision for “world order,” the development of a United Nations international stand-by force, and the role of disarmament, albeit in the recognition that political hurdles would have to be cleared first.

The conditions for total disarmament involve mutual confidence and trust. The conditions for a real world police force, by definition superior to any single national force, similarly involve a powerful degree of mutual confidence and trust. Planning for disarmament should properly include planning for such international forces. But with present political forces basically in conflict over the inheritance of the earth itself and supported by violently contrasting ideologies, such planning cannot legitimately assume short-term prospects.”

Nevertheless, Bloom viewed “world order” as a process that was relevant and immediate in terms of planning. He also suggested the US government should pursue the creation of a “genuine world community” as an official objective, “from which can come disarmament and world law.” Geo-political and technical difficulties in disarmament and “world government” were considered, and Bloom recognized that long term planning required “an atmosphere of reality and concreteness.” However, global crisis could be a catalyst, but this too was problematic.

“Of course, a global war could bring about a world government overnight. A series of trips to the brink might shake profoundly the rooted values and habit systems that place national sovereignty above virtually all else in today’s world. But neither contingency furnishes a useful basis for planning.”

He reminded his audience that, historically, much thought had already gone into the technical administration of global interdependence. And while he supported world government as a goal, he cautioned that “a  world government, while satisfying certain administrative and security needs, conceivably might... jeopardize the high standard of individual liberties painfully acquired by certain Western peoples.”[4]

1961: The Soviet Union and the United States of America took part in discussions regarding general disarmament. The US representative was John J. McCloy, then chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Ford Foundation, and an unofficial advisor to the US President. On the Soviet side was Valerian A. Zorin, then Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Soviet representative to the UN Security Council. Talks occurred in Washington, June 19-30; Moscow, July 17-29; and New York, September 6-19. These meetings stemmed from a joint statement released on March 30th to the UN General Assembly. Consider the following ideas pulled from the Joint Statement on Agreed Principles for Disarmament Talks - also known as The McCloy/Zorin Agreement.

- “disarmament should be general and complete and that war should no longer be a means of settling international problems... in accordance with the principles of the UN Charter.”

- Internal security and UN military support would be established along similar lines to the 1960 Soviet position; That states only have pre-agreed armed forces for internal security, and that “states support the armed forces of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace and provide them with agreed contingents of manpower.”

- Disbanding of armed forces, bases closures, cessation of arms manufacturing, liquidation of all WMDs, and the total stoppage of military training and funding.

- Disarmament would follow specific stages “within agreed periods of time.”

- An international control group would be established under the auspices of the United Nations, and this control group would have unlimited powers of inspection.

- States would be obliged to supply and support the United Nations regarding “international armed forces for the maintenance of peace.”

Note: During the 98th Congress, the McCloy-Zorin principles were enshrined in legislation, House Concurrent Resolution 123, known as the Common Security Resolution. Furthermore, during the 1980s, the World Federalist Association (WFA) - the largest pro-world government lobby group in the United States - published a short document titled Peace is Possible. In distributing this document, complete with the short text of the McCloy-Zorin agreement, it was hoped that members of the WFA would put pressure on politicians; “Urge the President and other American leaders to initiate new talks with the Russians to elaborate these principles into a formal treaty. We must prepare for peace if we are to have peace!”[5]

1961: The Soviet Union released a Memorandum on Measures to Ease International Tensions.

“There is no task more vital and urgent today than the task of preserving peace. The efforts of all states, all members of the United Nations Organization, of all people of the world must be directed toward preserving peace and eliminating war forever from the life of human society. A correct and reliable way toward this goal is provided by general and complete disarmament, which will wholly destroy the military machines of states and secure a world without arms, a world without wars...

"...The Soviet Union is prepared to sign at any moment a treaty on general and complete disarmament with the establishment of the strictest international control.”

To this end, the Soviet Union suggested the creation of a non-aggression treaty between the Warsaw Pact and NATO. The propaganda effect of such a memorandum, released into the diplomatic community, would have been especially salient to the non-aligned nations.[6]

1961: President John F. Kennedy delivered a speech to the United Nations General Assembly that had strikingly similar themes to Khrushchev’s 1959 call for global disarmament. Kennedy talked about how the armament problem is “no longer a Soviet problem or an American problems, but a human problem.” What was needed, according to the President, was a stage-by-stage program of “general and complete disarmament under effective and international control.”

As he explained to the General Assembly, this control and inspection system would be managed through an international organization “within the framework of the United Nations.” Furthermore, this program would “abolish all armies and all weapons except those needed for internal order and a new United Nations peace force.”[7]

1961: In September, the US Department of State - presumably through its Disarmament Administration - released Department of State Publication 7277, Freedom From War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World.

This document essentially mirrored the Soviet three-stage general and complete disarmament program, including disbanding national forces with the exception of what’s needed for internal security. A global control and inspection body would likewise be implemented, and when the third stage was complete, the United Nations would be “sufficiently strong and the obligations of all states under such arrangements sufficiently far-reaching as to assure peace and the just settlement of differences in a disarmed world.” According to Publication 7277, this meant the development of a progressively strengthened UN Peace Force.

1961: The bottom line under both the Soviet and American program was this: Nations must diminish as the United Nations increases. Freedom From War was a call for world government.

Foreign policy elites and technicians, including Harrison Brown who had played a role in the development of the first atomic bomb, along with scientists linked to the Democratic Advisory Council's Committee on Science and Technology, worked on the concept of an officially independent US disarmament office tentatively titled the US Peace Agency. Some within this group envisioned it operating out of the White House as an executive arm of the President.

Moving from the concept to the concrete, John J. McCloy drafted a bill to create the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA) as a stand-alone entity replacing the short-lived State Department’s Disarmament Administration. This bill also created the General Advisory Committee for Arms Control with the purpose of giving advice to the US President, Secretary of State, and ACDA Director. On September 26, 1961, the Arms Control and Disarmament Act passed. The ACDA officially was placed within the US national security community, and John J. McCloy became chair of the General Advisory Committee.

Concerns over the ACDA were immediately raised by certain Congressmen and military brass, worried that this new agency would become a haven for radicals and “beatniks” - a “government in exile for the peace movement.” Robert Lovett, former Secretary of Defense, expressed concern that the ACDA would turn into “a Mecca for a wide variety of screwballs.”

The first ACDA Director was William C. Foster, a Republican with a reputation for being promilitary. Although he was deemed acceptable to critics of the ACDA, the agency’s purpose was to move “toward ultimate world disarmament” - so it was no surprise that the ACDA drew from people with an internationalist mindset. For example, one of the first men to enter the agency’s fold was McCloy’s aide, Richard J. Barnet.

Earlier Barnet had been involved with the organizing of the ACDA concept, and in 1961 he was appointed Special Assistant to the Department of State. When the ACDA became operational he moved into the new agency as Deputy Director of Political Research. Barnet was an interesting character. Previously he had been a Fellow with the Russian Research Center at Harvard, and his “official” career in ACDA didn’t last long.

While attending “a high-powered State Department meeting full of generals and defense industry executives in 1961,” he and another young man, Marcus Raskin - a member of the National Security Council’s Special Staff - heard one official say, “if this group cannot bring about disarmament, then no one can.” Snickering at the comment, Barnet and Raskin’s eyes met from across the room. Two years later both had quit their government positions to run their newly created organization, the Institute for Policy Studies, a leftist think-tank dedicated to arms control and peace advocacy.

Barnet was only one of many who felt the gravitational pull of ACDA. “World government” advocates Lincoln P. Bloomfield, Arthur I. Waskow, and Richard A. Falk were soon connected. For many elites of the day, this start-up agency smelled of opportunity. Writing on the early years of the ACDA, journalist Arthur Herzog made an interesting observation.

“The ACDA has also managed to develop its own cadre of young, entirely dedicated, scientific specialists in arms control and disarmament. They may well be the first disarmament professionals in the history of the world.”

The ACDA’s inception in 1961 marked the first time a government had established an official agency on disarmament. Since then, the agency has played a role in arms limitation talks, disarmament negotiations, nonproliferation issues, and analysis of strategic weapons development in the Soviet Union and China.

NOTE: In 1999 the ACDA merged with the US Department of State.[8]

1961: The Peace Research Institute was established in Washington DC as a “research and educational organization.” Although I was unable to obtain much information about the history or make-up of the PRI, from what I do have it is evident that the organization was used as a conduit of ACDA grant funds to Arthur I. Waskow - a name that prominently features in this timeline.

1961: A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations, was published by the Washington based Institute for Defense Analysis, under contract by the US Department of State. Its author, Lincoln P. Bloomfield (see page 3) was connected to the arms control and disarmament agenda throughout the 1960s.

Essentially, A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations outlined UN empowerment in a new world model - a “world government” through mandatory membership in global institutions. Moreover, this United Nations “world government” would have a nuclear equipped global military force. The following was taken from the “Summary.” (NOTE: I have separated the points for easier reading)

“The principal features of a model system would include the following:

(1) powers sufficient to monitor and enforce disarmament, settle disputes, and keep the peace - including taxing powers - with all other powers reserved to the nations;

(2) an international force, balanced appropriately among ground, sea, air, and space elements, consisting of 500,000 men, recruited individually, wearing a UN uniform, and controlling a nuclear force composed of 50-100 mixed landbased mobile and undersea-based missiles, averaging one megaton per weapon;

(3) governmental powers distributed among three branches so that primary functions would exist in some recognizable form in a bicameral legislative organ, an executive organ, and an expanded international judicial network;

(4) compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court for both legal disputes and legal aspects of political disputes;

(5) approximately 130 political subunits, all nominally independent states, within the system;

(6) continued jurisdiction over cosmetic affairs by the national governments; and

(7) unrestricted international inspection of all states against violation of the disarmament agreement, with permament inspection of nuclear research and power equipment, strategic areas and industries, administrative policies and operations, and other key and strategic points in the national economy.”[9]

1962: In May, the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency Agency released its report, Blueprint for the Peace Race: Outline of Basic Provisions of a Treaty on General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World - also known as the Outline.

Like the earlier Freedom From War and Soviet plans, the Outline laid out a three-stage program closely mirroring the Kremlin’s 1960 proposal, including the use of a Control Council. Peaceful uses of Outer Space was added to the Outline, including pre-launch inspection by an international agency, with the United Nations playing a key role. Added too were extra provisions on prohibiting nuclear testing, more details on the work and operation of an International Disarmament Organization under the UN umbrella, suggested national armament sizes for Stage II, and how transitions from stage to stage should be handled. The US document, moreover, envisioned a stronger up-front role for a United Nations Peace Force.

Regardless of differences, the basic building blocks mimicked previous plans, and the Outline became the de facto American document on general and complete disarmament - an official position embedded in the nations’ security and foreign affairs apparatus.

1962: Building on the earlier Ten Nation Committee, a new high-level group was formed under the acceptance of the United Nations General Assembly - the Eighteen Nation Committee on Disarmament (ENCD). The original Ten Nation Committee included five members from the Warsaw Pact and five from NATO. Keeping these ten, another eight were added from the nonaligned global community; India, Mexico, Brazil, Burma, Nigeria, Sweden, the United Arab Republic and Ethiopia. The United States was represented by Marcus Raskin.

The ENCD weighed the differences between the closely associated Soviet and American world disarmament plans. Briefly reporting on the Committee’s work, the September 1962 issue of International Conciliation, published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, took note of the variances,

“The Soviet draft treaty would complete the disarmament process in four years; the United States outline provides for the first two stages to take three years each if conditions are satisfactory met, and sets no time limit for the third stage. To keep the peace in a disarmed world, the United States plan provides, inter alia, for a United Nations Peace Force to be established during Stage II, and strengthened in Stage III so as to give it a virtual monopoly of armed force."

The Soviet plan calls for states to conclude agreements with the Security Council that would make armed forces available under Article 43 of the United Nations Charter...”

NOTE: the Cuban Crisis of 1962 pushed the ENCD into mediating a line of communication between the United States and Russia. This was the famous “Red Phone” hotline system that linked the White House with the Kremlin.

1962: The Missile Crisis of October, which pitted the Soviet Union and Cuba against the United States over missile bases on Cuban soil, brought the two global superpowers to the brink of open conflict. Indeed, some historians see this crisis as the closest brush to nuclear warfare during the Cold
War period.


After a tense naval blockade, backchannel negotiations, and agreed-upon conditions, the Soviet Union pulled its missiles from Cuba. America, in turn, dismantled its Jupiter class nuclear missiles in Turkey.

The Cuban Missile Crisis dealt a blow to the Soviet/American push for “general and complete disarmament.” Instead, the principle of “mutual assured destruction” was solidified; Through the use of nuclear weaponry, each nation had the capability of destroying the other in a near simultaneous action - both attacker and defender would lose in a nuclear exchange.


At the same time, the Cuban Crisis became an example used by many elites to continue the push towards United Nations empowerment - for in the minds of many, only an international force under a world authority could be impartial in the Cold War split between the USSR and the United States.


1962: Kenneth Boulding, Professor of Economics at Michigan University, social scientist, and co-founder of the General System Theory, penned an article titled “The Prevention of World War III.” Professor Boulding called for a “world social contract” with disarmament in mind, and he postulated what this would look like once it was achieved.

“The last stage, of course, is true world government, capable not only of controlling conflict but of expressing and developing the common concerns and aims of mankind. At the moment this seems to be a long way off. Fortunately, the prevention of war does not depend, I think, on the establishment of full world government... war [World War III] may be postponed for longer and longer periods until the postponement becomes indefinite by the establishment of a true world government.”[11]

1962: Hugh Gaitskell of Great Britain’s Labour Party gave an 8-point plan for world government, including; “The establishment of the nucleus of a permanent international police force.”[11]

1962: Richard A. Falk, a professor of international law and a leading advocate of world government - he has been a major figure in World Federalist circles, and today he is the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestine - published an essay on revolutionary trends towards a “warless world.” This was a radical call, demanding major “social change” and the “sacrifice” of privileged roles for leading nations. Falk wrote,

“...the transformation that we envision restructures relations, institutions, and values through time - by shifting power, by developing techniques to influence behavior to form new loyalties and new inhibitions, and by acting to create a new world consciousness that accepts the altered distribution of power and loyalty.”

To that end, Falk recognized that force and coercion may still be necessary tools.

“Although it is desirable to abolish the use of force in international affairs we are not eager to eliminate the possibilities for radical international change. In this connection it must be acknowledged that force has played a central legislative role in world politics...”

In terms of increasing tension in the realm of traditional national affairs, Falk wrote;

“The result of these challenges to the traditional international legal system is to create a situation of transitional crisis. For the inadequacies of the old order have given rise to the beginnings of a new order...”

Recognizing the “problems of conflict management” in transitioning to an international order, which may witness a violent setback within the Cold War context, it was noted that the world community, “acting as a whole or as a region, can take responsibility for coercing certain minimum changes in domestic communities.” In other words, to prevent internal strife or conflict between countries, the international community must shape domestic behavior for world thinking, and coercion is a tool to be used to that end.

In conclusion, Falk stated that modernized nations needed to “overcome selfish perspectives and adopt a community perspective that aims at global welfare and order.”

1962: The Arms Control and Disarmament Agency hosted a “Summer Study on Verification and Response in Disarmament Agreements” at Woods Hole, Massachusetts. Attending the event were twenty-four lawyers, scientists, and political elite.

The purpose of the Summer Study was to hammer out the complexities of general and specific disarmament processes, especially the issues of arms control verification and the use and management of inspection teams - including the pros and cons of internationally controlled inspection units.

Noted participants in the ACDA Summer Study included,

    - Richard A. Falk

    - Richard J. Barnet.

    - Lincoln L. Bloomfield.

    - Roger Fisher.

    - C. Burton Marshall.- Hans J. Morganthau.

    - Louis B. Sohn.  (See, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, April 1963, pp.44-48)

1963: Nuclear weapons testing was the focus of negotiations between the USSR, the United States, and the United Kingdom. The outcome was the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (NTBT) which went into effect on October 10, 1963. NTBT prohibited atomic-weapon testing in outer space and underwater, and it was hoped it would pave the way to further disarmament goals.

1963: The Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies opened as a “counterinstitution,” a policy pressure group working on the “edges of government.

Organized by former Deputy Director of Political Research at ACDA, Richard Barnet, and former National Security Council’s Special Staff member, Marcus Raskin, this progressive-left think tank advocated for general disarmament and world peace. In a sense, the IPS unleashed the more radical scholars attached to the ACDA. Moreover, linkages continued to exist between the ACDA and IPS, particularly through research grants to IPS “fellows” such as Arthur I. Waskow via the Peace Research Institute.

Other ACDA-IPS linked personalities included Hans J. Morgenthau and Richard Falk. Paul Warnke, who would later become Director of the ACDA under the Carter administration, was also a contributor to an early IPS conference.

Commenting on the history of the Institute for Policy Studies, Professor Maurice Tugwell wrote, “Almost everything the Institute for Policy Studies has ever done is anti-Western, antidefence, and pro-Marxist.” Professor John J. Tierney from the Institute of World Politics has this to say about the history of the IPS.

During the Cold War IPS spouted a far left anti-capitalist ideology, and it fostered close ties to communist and socialist parties around the globe. IPS activists made their careers exposing and condemning what they considered human rights abuses by the U.S. and its allies. But they took advantage of American civil liberties to protect themselves while they denounced the government that guaranteed their liberty.


IPS was careful to put itself on record as being critical of the police state methods of the KGB and other Communist security forces. But it was largely silent about totalitarian rule in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, China, Cuba, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and other Marxist states, and instead found reasons to support America’s enemies.

For decades IPS welcomed foreign and domestic radicals. IPS co-founder Richard Barnet once said the communist threat was a ‘myth... that no one quite believed in’ and he described the Soviet Union as an innocent victim of U.S. corporate power: ‘the Soviets moved in a spirit of insecurity and panic.’ IPS senior fellow Saul Landau called the USSR mankind’s savior: ‘The Soviet Union has been the one insurance policy of successful revolutions.’

With all of this in mind, Professor Tierney asks an interesting question:

“In retrospect, how could any group prosper when it made such preposterous claims? It’s clear that IPS had little or no interest in America’s Founding principles and social virtues. But what explains its neutrality toward the contest pitting totalitarianism against liberty. Were the ‘public scholars’ at IPS naive progressives, ‘fellow travelers’ or ‘agents of influence’?”

Tierney also noted that the IPS of today has staked-its-claim; “It endorses a world order that is based on the philosophy it has promoted for nearly 50 years.”

Getting back to the ACDA of the early 1960s: Even though the IPS worldview was radically left, Barnet and Raskin - and other personalities attached to the IPS - continued to influence the disarmament debate, rubbed shoulders with policy elites connected to the ACDA, and provided tangible support to Congress members who were sympathetic to the disarmament agenda.

NOTE: The IPS is one of the most influential think-tanks in America today, and finds itself on the “inside” regarding the Obama administration.[13]

Arthur I. Waskow, then a Senior Fellow at the Washington-based Peace Research Institute (PRI) and a recipient of funding grants from the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency for his work at PRI, published a PRI “handbook” titled The Worried Man’s Guide To World Peace.

Here, Waskow presented divergent views on disarmament, including the “world government” perspective. NOTE: In 1963 Waskow joined the Institute for Policy Studies.

“Near the other end of the spectrum of peace policies is the possibility of sizable change from the present situation, to one involving world government: the world operating under agreed rules of law that could be enforced by a worldwide institution more powerful than any single nation. In this possible future, all problems of disarmament and economic development would be dealt with by a world legislature and world courts with a world armed force at their disposal.

For example, the world legislature would have power to spell out what kinds of weapons that would be forbidden, to raise or reduce the inspection requirements, and to provide for courts where individuals could be tried or nations enjoined. An attempt by one nation to cast off the agreement would be forbidden, and so the world institution would need armed forces powerful enough to punish such a secession.”

1963: Richard A. Falk - an international law advocate and World Federalist - published an essay exploring the moral and legal limits regarding the use of force in an international context. Falk recognized “a need to confront the problem of civil disobedience in international affairs.” In this sense he wasn’t talking about people acting against the world community. Rather, Falk was making reference to individual nations, who are deemed a single entity in a new world order. In other words, individual countries can be viewed as “good” or “bad” global citizens, and can thus be considered “obedient” or “disobedient” to the world state.

In referencing the UN Charter, Falk noted that it actually goes far “in the direction of centralizing discretion over the use of force.” Effective application, however, was lacking. Nonetheless, he reasoned, force must not be overlooked as an important tool in shaping a world society.

“Force is itself a neutral energy. Its value or disvalue arises from the motives, prudence, and consequences of its use... The formulation of a new rule relocating authority to use force must be accompanied by steps that permit effective implementation...

Force in human affairs is not a crude phenomenon to be identified with physical strength. It is best conceived as a spectrum that ranges from mild forms of intimidation to intense applications of violence. To often force in international affairs is identified today only with a full-scale nuclear war. Attention must be given to threats to use force and to lesser modes of coercion, and especially, in the world as we find it, to a series of interventionary techniques that usually fall short of direct military action... Our survival and welfare depend upon the capacities of nations and governing groups to have the courage and imagination to transform the world into a different kind of political structure. ...Force, we recall, is available as a means to achieve social ends.”[15]

1963: The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist noted that Arthur I. Waskow of the Peace Research Institute was proposing a variety of policy ideas to open Soviet-American relations.

- Enlarge the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency into a national peace agency [Note: there has been a long-term push in world federalist circles and by progressive groups to create an independent US Peace Agency.]

- Begin economic planning for disarmament.

- Grant Soviet citizens free travel in the United States (the Bulletin noted was now done in part).

- Unilateral cessation of nuclear testing.

- Expand world trade.

- Allow Soviet military observers into the Distant Early Warning radar line (the DEW line was the first line of warning against approaching Russian aircraft or ballistic missiles).

    (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, January 1963, p.24.)

1963: The United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency provided a grant to the Peace Research Institute to conduct studies on how to manage an International Police Force in the new published by the Peace Research Institute.

Contributors to the Appendix included the following authors and their essay titles.

NOTE: All of the following, with the exception of Singer, either were or have been members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Singer, however, was heavily tied to the one-world movement and later was a member of the World Federalist Association - the largest pro-world government organization in the United States.

 - Walter Millis: “The Political Control of an International Force.”

 - Hans J. Morgenthau: “The Impartiality of the International Police.”

 - Roger Fisher: “Sequential Controls for International Police.”

 - J. David Singer: “The Internal Operation and Organization of an International Police Force.”

 - Lincoln P. Bloomfield: “Political Control of International Forces in Dealing with Problems of Local Instability.” Bloomfield also contributed a second essay on the UN Force in Congo.

 - Richard C. Snyder: “Some Thoughts on Problems of Thinking into the Future, with Particular Reference to Political Control of an International Police Force.”

1963: Speaking to the Harvard Alumni Association, UN Secretary-General U Thant addressed the need for a United Nations Peace Force in what he called a “new world order.” Although he recognized that the timing was not yet right, his hope was clear,

“The development of an international order, enshrined in an accepted code of world law and guaranteed by an effective world police force, has long been a human aspiration... Most sensible people now agree that some reliable system of ensuring world peace is essential.”

U Thant wound down his speech by pointing out three necessary requirements for a “permanent United Nations force.”

1) “We have to develop a more sophisticated public opinion in the world, which can accept the transition fro predominantly national thinking to international thinking.”

2) “We shall have to develop a deeper faith in international institutions as such, and a greater confidence in the possibility of the United Nations civil service whose international loyalty and objectivity are generally accepted and above suspicion.”

3) “We shall have to improve the method of financing international organization.”

               (U Thant, “United Nations Peace Force,” reprinted in The Strategy of World Order: Volume 3 - The United Nations (World Law Fund, 1966), p.526, 532-533)

1964: Lincoln P. Bloomington published his book, International Military Forces. In it, six leading global thinkers unpacked the problems and challenges of a United Nations military force in a series of essays. Bloomington’s essay proposed a UN stand-by force of 25,000 men, a UN training program, and independent funding. Other contributors, such as Henry V. Dicks, discussed the social impact upon the “international soldier,” such as the problem of loyalty,  morale and belief in the cause, social integration and cohesion in an international military force. Hans J. Morgenthau’s essay, “Political Conditions for a Force” (see page 15), and Thomas C. Schelling’s radical essay, “Strategy: A World Force in Operation” was included (see below).

      ( Lincoln P. Bloomington, International Military Force: Peace-Keeping in an Armed and Disarmed World (Little, Brown and Company, 1964).

1964: Strategic thinker and member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Thomas C. Schelling, put forward one of the most outrageous visioning models for a future world force. Although his ideas were not intend ed to be taken as hard policy, they were meant to be a discussion starter on what could be. Schelling recognized three areas that needed to be explored; 1) “the organization of the force,” 2) “its foreign policy - what it is supposed to deter, to compel, or to obstruct” 3) “the techniques by which the threat or application of military (or non-military) violence is to be used to support that policy.”

It was in the realm of technique where Schelling proposed some rather remarkable ideas;

- the use of nuclear weapons to inflict pain on offending nations,

- pre-positioning world forces in leading countries,

- placing a nation’s economic infrastructure under the authority of the world force,

- introducing biological agents into the community and using the antidote as political leverage

- introducing biological agents into the community and using the antidote as political leverage.

Schelling himself noted that some of these schemes would not be acceptable - “they probably go too far” - and that the international force, although favored to win, should find it difficult to make the decision to intervene in a sovereign nation. See page 27 for major excerpts of Schelling’s essay.

(Thomas C. Schelling, “Strategy: A World Force in Operation,” reprinted in The Strategy of World Order: Volume 3 - The United Nations (World Law Fund, 1966), pp,669, 682-684.)

(This same essay is published in International Military Force: Peace-Keeping in an Armed and Disarmed World, edited by Lincoln P. Bloomfield (Little, Brown and Company, 1964).

1964: Hans J. Morgenthau - one of the most noted scholar on international relations and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations - penned an essay on political conditions for a world force. He recognized the inseparable reality of global disarmament and world authority.

“Total disarmament requires as its corollary the existence of a supranational authority capable of committing organized force to the defense of the legal order and the political status quo. In other words, total disarmament and world government go hand in hand; they compliment each other. In a totally disarmed world the problem of an international police force ceases to exist and reappears in the form - new in its dimensions and old in its substance - of the police of a world government.”

(Hans J. Morgenthau, “Political Conditions for a Force,” reprinted in The Strategy of World Order: Volume 3 - The United Nations (World Law Fund, 1966), p.666.)

1964:  Italian diplomat Roberto Ducci recommended that the road to international security lay in regional units recognized by the UN Charter; NATO, the Organization of American States, OAU in Africa and SEATO in Southeast Asia. He also suggested that the United Nations undergo a “thorough overhaul” to ensure world order.

(Roberto Ducci, “The World Order in the Sixties,” reprinted in The Strategy of World Order: Volume 1 - Toward a Theory of War Prevention (World Law Fund, 1966), p.185.)

1964: The Washington Center of Foreign Policy Research, a division of the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, undertook a study for the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. During the course of this project, seven authors produced seven essays to help guide the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency in fleshing out what a “disarmed world” and an international force might look like.

All who contributed were professors in prestigious postings; some where consultants to the Department of State, the Department of Defense, or to the Congressional Committee on Foreign Affairs; some had taught at the National War College or the Naval War College; one was a member of the Social Science Department at RAND; one was a past consultant to the Executive Office of the President; and all but one a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Directing this team was Robert Osgood, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and past consultant to the US Department of Defense.

The papers presented to the Disarmament Agency dealt with policy implications, practical military problems in a disarming world, questions of legitimacy and world authority, and strategic challenges in arming and equipping an international peace force. One author noted tht if a country wanted to “resume military autonomy” - that is, re-arm itself as a sovereign state - it would be regarded “as an act of rebellion and secession,” and would itself become a potential target by the world force.

(See, The United States in a Disarmed World: A Study of the U.S Outline for General and Complete Disarmament (The Johns Hopkins Press, 1966).)

1965: Louis B. Sohn, a scholar of international law who was involved in the early work on the United Nations, recommended the creation of an empowered United Nations Force paid for by a World Bank disarmament transfer. Working alongside would be the International Court of Justice - providing a judicial setting - and a “world parliament” to give legal clout.

(Louis B. Sohn, “Practical Steps Toward World Peace,” Peace is Possible: A Reader on World Order (Grossman Publishers, 1966), pp.302-311)

1965: The Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions published Keeping the World Disarmed by Arthur I. Waskow, suggesting an international police force. This police system would have the power to deal with boundary incursions, disarmament inspections, and operate on a graduated threat system based on deterrence first.

Two options were considered; First, the creation of a Disarmament Police Force pulled from the Big Four - USA, USSR, China, and the United Kingdom - as attached to the United Nations. But this arrangement, it was noted, could be undermined by a veto. The second option was an independent police force unattached to Great Powers. Waskow provided some thoughts on this,

“These units would be fully transnational, trained by the international police force itself, made up of men loyal to the international police force, and financed from its won funds. For these purposes, the international police force would need to have facilities fro recruiting limited numbers of men, training them in very specific tasks, inculcating in them loyalty to the international police force, and paying them out of its own funds. Small police training centers scattered around the world, some of them perhaps aboard ships on the high sea or on isolated islands, would be suitable for such purposes.”

 (Arthur I. Waskow, Keeping  the World Disarmed (Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, 1965), p.70. This think tank was an arm of The Fund for the Republic, an entity funded through the Ford Foundation.)

1965: Marion H. McVitty, the representative of the United World Federalists at the United Nations, published a far-reaching essay on proposed rules for future UN peace-keeping. Here are some of her suggested rules.

1) “The United Nations should have control of the forces placed at its disposal.”

2) “The United Nations should have the right to internationalize, disarm, or otherwise neutralize local armed forces in the host territory.”

3) “The United Nations should be able to control unauthorized assistance from outside the area of UN operations.

4) “The United Nations should have competence over individuals opposing, or impeding, a UN mandate. Recalcitrant individuals involved in a particular emergency situation should be liable to UN apprehension, detention and disposition.”

(Marion H. McVitty, “Wanted: Rules to Guide UN Peace-Keeping Operations of the Future,” reprinted in The Strategy of World Order: Volume 3 - The United Nations (World Law Fund, 1966), pp.574-575.)

1966: Kenneth Boulding, the co-director of the Center for Research on Conflict Resolution and a Professor of Economics at the University of Michigan, wrote of a future harmonization.

“The United Nations represents the aspirations of mankind for unity; it embodies and legitimizes the enormous yearning to avoid the scourge of war; and it is the forerunner of the world government towards which all the long-run forces of history seem to be heading.”

(Kenneth Boulding, “Population and Poverty,” Peace is Possible: A Reader on World Order (Grossman, 1966), pp.51-52.)

1966: The Eighteen-Nations Committee on Disarmament (ENCD), which started in 1962 and met different points in the 1960s, released a report reminding the world community of its primary future goal: A treaty on general and complete disarmament. However, the Committee recognized that other disarmament issues currently on the table had to be considered first, such as nuclear non-proliferation and comprehensive ban on nuclear testing. As in past years, the ENCD voiced its desire to initiate a World Disarmament Conference.

(The United Nations and Disarmament, 1945-1970 (United Nations, 1970), p.107.)

1967: A group of consultant experts appointed by the UN Secretary-General to study the issue of general disarmament released a report on the role of nuclear proliferation to the problem of disarmament.

“The solution of the problem of ensuring security cannot be found in an increase in the number of States possessing nuclear weapons or, indeed, in the retention of nuclear weapons by the Powers currently possessing them. An agreement to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons as recommended by the United Nations, freely negotiated and genuinely observed, would therefore be a powerful step in the right direction, as would also an agreement on the reduction of existing nuclear arsenals.

Security for all countries of the world must be sought through the elimination of all stockpiles of nuclear weapons and the banning of their use, by way of general and complete disarmament.”-

  (The United Nations and Disarmament, 1945-1970 (United Nations, 1970), p.111.)

1968: The World Federalists of Canada presented a proposal to Canada’s Minister of External Affairs on August 14. This recommendation asked the government of Canada to undertake a world peace-keeping program. The proposal reads, in part,

“We propose that Canada should immediately take the initiative in forming within the United Nations a grouping of nations which might be called the World Peacemakers Association (WPA). These nations would pledge their support to UN peacekeeping operations, and train their forces with UN duties in mind. They would also train teams of mediators to help settle particular conflicts.

In return, these nations would ask the UN to provide for their security from aggression.”

(See, Lincoln P. Bloomfield, The Power to Keep the Peace: Today and in a World Without War (World Without War Council, 1964/1971), p.229.)

1969: Canadian Maj. General Frederick S. Carpenter recommended to a conference on “The Future of the United Nations,” that a United Nations stand-by force should be earmarked and trained at a Peacekeepers Staff College. Reporting on this, Lincoln P. Bloomfield writes,

“He recommended that some nation initially - it could be Canada - renounce unilateral use of its military force and turn them over to the UN for exclusive peacekeeping functions. He suggest that this nation ‘vacate’ its seat at the UN to avoid taking sides in disputes where it may serve a peacekeeping role, and to be ‘truly servants of the UN’.”

(See, Lincoln P. Bloomfield, The Power to Keep the Peace: Today and in a World Without War (World Without War Council, 1964/1971), p.231.)

1969: The United Nations Association of the USA hosted a national panel on “Controlling Conflicts in the 1970s.” When complete, the panel recommended the creation of a 25,000 man United Nations stand-by force comprised of “land, sea and air units.” Moreover, these forces would be specifically trained to operate as UN units or task groups of approximately 5,000 men each - “3000 active ground forces with 2,000 men in air, naval, logistic and staff support.”

The panel further recommended that a Special Peacekeeping Section within the UN Secretariat be established to help the Secretary-General manage these stand-by forces. In other words, this would be a UN commanded and controlled military entity.

(See Lincoln P. Bloomfield’s note on page 3, The Power to Keep Peace: Today and in a World Without War (World Without War Council, 1971, pp, 158-161)

1969: The Governments of the Soviet Union and the United States initiated bilateral talks on limiting strategic nuclear weapons. The United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution urging both countries to place a moratorium on nuclear weapon testing and deployment of “new offensive and defensive strategic nuclear-weapons systems.”

1969: Looking back on the work of disarmament in the 1960s, and with the activities of the ENCD in mind, the country of Romania recommended that a UN proclamation be made declaring 1970-1980 as the Disarmament Decade. In a note, the UN Secretary-General gave support to the idea,

“I would accordingly propose that the Members of the United Nations decide to dedicate the decade of he 1970s, which has already been designated as the Second United Nations Development Decade, as a Disarmament Decade. I would hope that the members of the General Assembly could establish a specific timetable for dealing with all aspects of the problem of arms control and disarmament.”

This proposal carried and passed, and the world looked to a bright future - a new decade free from weapons, free from war, and working together for peace.
It was to be the dawning of a New Age. FC


Carl Teichrib is the editor of Forcing Change (www.forcingchange.org), a monthly online publication detailing the changing worldview and transforming agendas now shaping society, the church, and nation.

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 www.forcingchange.org.

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, R0J-1P0



1. To read more on the Soviet statements and proposals for 1960, see The Soviet Stand on Disarmament (Crosscurrents Press, 1962). Note: Crosscurrents Press was an arm of The International Book Company, “a Soviet Government agency for the import and export of printed material.” The statements by Barghoorn are found on pages 103-105 and page 94 of Soviet Foreign Propaganda (Princeton University Press, 1964).

2.  Richard J. Barnet, Roots of War (Penguin, 1972/1985), pp.49-50.

3. Quoted by Lincoln P. Bloomfield, The Power to Keep Peace: Today in a World Without War (World Without War Council, 1971), p.11.

4. Lincoln P. Bloom, The United Nations and U.S Foreign Policy (Little, Brown and Company, 1960), on confidence and trust see page 49, on world community as US objective see page 89, on “world government overnight” see page 17, on jeopardizing liberty see pages 218-219.

5. The Soviet Stand on Disarmament (Crosscurrents Press, 1962), pp.61-65. Peace is Possible (World Federalists Association, released during Norman Cousin’s presidency), p.16.

6. The Soviet Stand on Disarmament (Crosscurrents Press, 1962), p.81. For more on the NATO/Warsaw Pact connection, see pages 84-85.

7. John F. Kennedy, “Future of the United Nations Organization: Proposals for New Disarmament Program,” delivered to the United Nations General Assembly, September 25, 1961.

8. Arthur Herzog, The War-Peace Establishment (Harper & Row, 1963/1965), for the Harrison Brown period, see page 113, for the early concerns, see pages 114-115; for the quote on “disarmament professionals,” see page 116. (For the experience of Barnet and Raskin with the generals and their start-up of the Institute for Policy Studies, see the IPS history webpage; http://www.ips-dc.org/about/history)

9. Lincoln P. Bloomfield, A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations (Institute for Defense Analysis, Special Studies Group, under US Department of State contract No. SCC 28270, released March 10, 1962.

10. International Conciliation, September 1962, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, p.11.

11. Kenneth Boulding, “The Prevention of World War III,” Peace is Possible: A Reader on World Order (Grossman Publishers, 1966), p.89)

12 .Richard Falk, “Historical Tendencies, Modernizing and Revolutionary Nations, and the International Legal Order,” reprinted in The Strategy of World Order: Volume 2 - International Law (World Law Fund, 1966), pp.172-187)

13. For the quote by Tugwell, see Maurice Tugwell, Peace With Freedom (Key Porter Books, 1988), p.143. For the quote by Tierney, see John J. Tierney, “The Institute for Policy Studies: Architects of American Decline,” Foundation Watch, February 2011, p.3)

14. Arthur I. Waskow, The Worried Man’s Guide to World Peace (Doubleday/Peace Research Institute, 1963), p.29)

15. Richard A. Falk, “The Legal Control of Force in the International Community,” reprinted in The Strategy of World Order: Volume 2 - International Law (World Law Fund, 1966), pp.310, 311-312.

See also: Trusting God as Freedom Fades

Climate and Coinage: Hot Air and Hot Money

The UN Seizure of Parental Rights | Mandatory Training in Orwellian Thinking

 The Ominous "Success" of Re-Education  | Brainwashing in America