The Communists have created the illusion in free men’s minds that ‘the way to peace is through disarmament’. This was one of the original Communist slogans. Nowadays, ‘free men’ have adopted it as their own and are even sitting up special commissions to explore ways and means to carry it out. Experts tell us that to disarm in the face of an obvious and present danger is an immoral act. It is an act of self-destruction. Failure to take action in the face of evil is in itself evil. Disarmament means to depend upon agreements instead of strength. Agreements are absolutely useless unless they can be enforced. In a vacuum of disarmament, a government with criminal intentions requires very few secret arms to overcome all opposition. This is what Hitler and Mussolini taught us. In all this talk about disarmament, the thing to remember is that Khrushchev would not dare disarm. Remember that one of the Communist goals is to develop the illusion that total disarmament by the US would be a demonstration of moral strength. I would suppose that the Soviet Union chose not to display moral strength. Khrushchev’s armed forces were at six million; including two million secret police, of which Putin was a member. Their mission at the time was not to fight the West, but to maintain ‘domestic tranquility’ behind the “Iron Curtain’. Some would say that an arms race will lead to war. It is important to remember that an arms race is not the underlying cause of war, but a symptom of political conflict. To disarm in the face of political conflict invites war. After World War 2 the United States was well on the way to disarmament and demobilizing when the Korean War jolted us back into reality that vicious forces of conquest were still stalking up and down the earth. Today that is still true. Because that predatory force has not relented, we have no choice but to stay armed. The cry for disarmament by Communism is not a message of peace and freedom. It is the message of the enemy.
The next illusion Communism would like to sell is that of peaceful coexistence. The idea is that the West must be willing to coexist with Communism since the only alternative would be annihilation through an atomic war. The alternative to co-existence is co-resistance. Communism does not have to be tolerated. It has no moral, economic, or political excuse for existing. Co-existence is a contradiction of terms because it means trying to coexist with world conquest, which is impossible. One must resist or be conquered. It also means accepting the status quo of one-third of the human race in bondage as a permanent working arrangement.
Is there any organization or group that can help solve world problems without resorting to war? There have been two such attempts…the League of Nations and the United Nations. Both organizations started out as exclusive federations of ‘peace-loving’ nations and then turned right around and tried to convert themselves into world parliaments where all nations could be represented including warlike and predatory nations. In both cases these nations successfully seized power and almost completely nullified all the high-sounding phrases contained in their original statements of purpose. As was addressed by John Foster Dulles to the American Bar Association, “the failures of the UN are due primarily to the fact that its effective functioning depends upon cooperation with nations which are dominated by an international party seeking world domination.” (William W. Wade, The U.N. Today, H.W. Wilson Company, New York, p. 134). There are numerous provisions in the UN Charter which permit predatory powers such as Russia (Soviet Union) and China or their satellites to bring the orderly process of the UN to a dead halt. Article 2 of the UN Charter was established to prevent predatory actions. Here are some of those provisions:
> The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all members.
> All members…shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
> All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means.
> All Members shall refrain …from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
> All members shall…refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
In Hungary, China, Southeast Asia, Cuba, Africa, Central and South America, and Korea…one might say every sector of the world…the Soviet Union violated these principles continually. As a result, the whole UN complex is gradually reaching an impasse or stalemate because of contradiction between promise and performance. (In my humble opinion, the UN building in New York should be turned into a Holiday Inn.) Really, what should be done with the UN? Should UN membership be restricted to peace-loving nations? Due to the veto technicalities and numerous violations of American constitutional law in the existing Charter, it would be necessary to reconstruct the entire framework of the UN. The UN can never serve peace-loving peoples as long as the UN tries to accommodate its forum to the harassment and bedevilment of nations who make no pretense at fulfilling their obligations either under the Charter or under international law. Some might say, ‘would not such action drive Russia and her satellites into a second association of Red nations and create a contest of power blocs?’ Actually this already exists. The only difference would be that the Red bloc would not be in the UN to sabotage the united desires of the peace-loving nations as it does today.
The two organizations that were mentioned this week are representative of man attempting to be in charge of his own destiny while putting God on the sideline only to be a witness to man’s failures. In its founding charter our nation’s founders recognized that human beings…human beings around the world…are endowed by God with certain ‘unalienable rights.’ Today, however, any mention of God, including in the Charter of the UN and the League of Nations, would likely be crossed out so as not to offend anyone. Many leaders in American government, the courts, the media, and universities are offended or embarrassed by America’s God-based roots. Many even want to remove “one nation under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance and “In God We Trust” from our coins. Some even find the Pledge of Allegiance offensive while others are even rewriting history, removing any references to faith in the Founding Fathers. Some of these ‘leaders’ are the same ones who think they can establish a world organization that will bring about world Peace. There are even many leaders in the church who no longer talk about the God of the Bible, or His Son, Jesus Christ. They no longer teach about heaven or hell, or that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. Instead, they teach that there are many paths to the same destination and that it doesn’t really matter what you believe, as long as you’re sincere. Sincere belief in a lie doesn’t make it the truth. Some churches, embarrassed by the biblical story of Christ’s atonement for our sin on the cross, have removed the cross from their buildings and their Sunday morning services. Others are ashamed of the symbol of our national heritage, a heritage based on Judeo-Christian principles, and won’t even display our American flag. We live in a time of moral and spiritual crisis every bit as dire and dangerous as in Jeremiah’s day. Like Judah, it seems at times that our culture is rushing headlong toward its own destruction. And like Judah, we have a choice: blessings or destruction, freedom or captivity, a new golden age or a descent into darkness and death. It is only too obvious that the UN, NATO, SEATO, or any other manmade concoction is not the answer. As Christians we are called to take a stand. If you ever feel inadequate when God calls you, and when your time comes He will, remember that you are in good company. God’s servants often start with a sense of inadequacy. Without God, man’s efforts are doomed to failure.
Next week we will consider if the Communist movement is really a legitimate political movement? Can peaceful measures even have any impact on it? And we will start to look at what we can do from both a biblical and political point of view.
-Bob Munsey
“I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity, is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.” Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Geezer Politics 