Photograph of U.N. building in Jerusalem

United Nations Sits on Hill of Evil Counsel

"The escalating scandal of unpunished atrocities committed by UN 'peacekeepers' illustrates that the planetary police are beyond accountability."
- William Norman Grigg

    There is a hill in Jerusalem just south of the ancient walled city and across the Hinnom Valley. It is called, the Hill of Evil Counsel. Crowned with a thin stand of pines, ironically named the Peace Forest, it is historically believed to be the place where Judas held his last meeting with the Pharisees to finalize his covenant to betray Christ. In a twist of even greater irony it is also the site of the United Nations headquarters in Israel.

    The center of operations for UNTSO--the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization--is the UN entity tasked, since May of 1948, with oversight of the truce between the five contending nations of the region: Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt.

    For the sole purpose of general information gathering, The WINDS recently visited the UN installation in Jerusalem, formerly the British Government House during the period Great Britain governed Palestine. In the course of an interview with the Senior Political Advisor for UN Israel, Milos Strugar, The WINDS, almost inadvertently, was informed concerning a rapidly growing movement within the General Assembly of UN member nations "to assign emergency powers to the UN Secretary General." These emergency powers would enable the Secretary to deploy a "'Rapid Response Force' [1] while the Security Council makes up its collective mind" concerning any perceived crisis occurring within the borders of a given nation that they may regard as requiring a peacekeeping contingent.

    Considering that neither the Secretary General nor the UN General Assembly but, rather, the Security Council alone holds ultimate authority within the UN, this takes on somewhat the image of an embryonic dragon which would have tacit and autonomous authority to violate the sovereign borders of any country by the express will of a single man--the Secretary General of the United Nations. Currently, the Secretary can only report to and advise the Security Council which possesses sole authority to make political decisions and deploy "peacekeeping" forces.

    This desire of the UN to exercise NATO military authority over even non-NATO member countries is currently being testified to by events unfolding in the Serbian province of Kosovo. The international body is under pressure by the United States to commit NATO troops to quell what they say is becoming a precursor to more ethnic cleansing. The U.S. stands alone in its desire for immediate NATO intervention, though not alone in the intent.

    National Public Radio reported this month that several nations are willing to commit NATO forces to internal Serbian matters if only the Security Council would issue a resolution to that effect. What this says is that, to others than the U.S., all that is stopping an invasion of a sovereign nation, tending to what it sees as internal threats to its security, is a mindless piece of paper issued by the UN Security Council.

    The movement for a Rapid Response Force resulted, according to Mr. Strugar, from the inordinate length of time it took the Security Council to respond to the 1994 Rwandan genocide when, in the course of 100 days, Hutu tribesmen slaughtered over half a million Tutsis.

    Several nations, foremost among them the Netherlands, Canada, Australia and the Scandinavian countries, have presented as necessity the granting of such powers to the Secretary General as a short-term solution to the "two to three months required to organize and deploy a peacekeeping contingent." [ibid]. These new powers would strongly resemble U.S. presidential authority under the War Powers Act to engage American military forces in hostile action for up to six months before any accountability to Congress is required.

    The UN Senior Political Advisor shared with The WINDS that the primary and virtually only reason some member nations are "dragging their feet" in the creation of this Rapid Response force, is for the establishment of "rules of engagement"--a term heard most frequently in this country in connection with the Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents. One major result of those two watershed markers of American shame was to clearly illustrate that the presence of "rules of engagement" within FBI and BATF documents are, at best, ornamental.

    The question could be asked as to what would prevent other nations from treating "rules of engagement" as equally meaningless and arcane decorations included merely for public consumption. It appears that those countries who are eager to incorporate such literary cosmetics into the charter of any proposed UN Rapid Response Force would be served well by taking into consideration the United Nations' past record.

    The international body has notoriously endowed its "peacekeepers" with an appalling level of documented UN accountability in the discharge of their duties. This has been painfully illustrated in Somalia and many other places where they've been deployed.


    The barbarity displayed by the blue-hatted, peacekeeping contingents is not only well documented, but fairly well known by those who care to look. Notably the most infamous occurrence known to most would be the incident, caught on film, of two Belgian soldiers, Privates Claude Baert and Kurt Coelus, "roasting" a Somali child over a campfire. They were, according to a report in the The Village Voice acquitted by a military court which ruled that the incident -- described by the soldiers as a punishment for stealing -- was "'a form of playing without violence,' according to prosecutor Luc Walleyn.'"[2] Did that Somali child experience fun during this "play" and is this some strange new definition of the term "without violence" with which the world is yet unfamiliar?

    When asked by Jennifer Gould, the reporter originally breaking the story for The Village Voice, to comment on the acquittal of Baert and Coelus, a UN spokesman passed it off with the portentous remark that "the UN is not in the habit of embarrassing governments that contribute peacekeeping troops." [ibid]. If the UN will not "embarrass" its member governments and those governments do virtually nothing to punish their citizens who perpetrate such crimes, who is left to impose justice?

    A September '97 article in The New American entitled "Beasts in Blue Berets" [3] describes other photographs in the series depicting "UN soldiers kicking and stabbing a Somali and another soldier apparently urinating on the Somali's dead body; yet, another shows a Somali child being forced to drink salt water, vomit, and worms. A second group of photos published in the July 15 th Village Voice shows the dead bodies of bound Somalis -- what appears to be the work of a death squad.

    "One atrocity not caught on camera involved the 'punishment' of a Somali child by placing him in a metal container and withholding water from him for two days; predictably, the relentless African heat killed the child. One Belgian UN soldier testified that it was a regular practice to use metal boxes as prison cells, and that other Somalis probably died similarly gruesome deaths."

    The author of The New American article makes an interesting point in contrasting the dearth of U.S. publicity received by the UN peacekeeper's atrocities to the media overkill of the Rodney King incident. This seemingly overlooks the fact that one of the Globalist's central themes for moving their program to its desired end is the generation of racial hatred which was, of course, admirably served by Mr. King and the attendant video recording. It does not, however, serve those world powers in the least to have themselves exposed as the ultimate racists and terrorists.

    "Village Voice reporter Jennifer Gould came across the accounts of the Belgian atrocities while doing an earlier story about sexual harassment of female employees at UN headquarters. 'When I spoke with people at the UN, time after time I was told, "If you think it's bad here, you ought to see what happens in peacekeeping operations;"...'I started looking into that issue and found that the abuses I reported were well-known and easily documented. They were all over the media abroad, and I was really surprised it hadn't been written about over here."[ibid].

    "Photographs have now emerged showing Italian, Canadian and Belgian soldiers engaged in alleged acts of torture, murder and sexual violence against adults and children.... Germany was also tarred by a peacekeeping scandal, with officials admitting that German soldiers in Bosnia staged mock executions and rapes of civilians."[2]

    "Several years ago, according to Gould, 'Belgian soldiers were also accused of holding mock executions for Somali children and forcing them to dig their own graves; though their officer was given a suspended sentence, the soldiers were acquitted.' It is thus firmly established in Belgian military jurisprudence that service in the new world army is a license to commit barbarities with impunity."[3]

    A consummate example of the kind of duplicity and conflict of interest that will assuredly result from giving the United Nations its own permanent standing army, is found in the "prosecutions" of the Belgian peacekeepers. The farcical investigation into the crimes, on which the prosecutor based his case, was conducted "by a general who once headed the country's elite paratroop unit that he was later responsible for investigating."[2]

    Had the soldiers been convicted, according to The Village Voice, the Belgian prosecutor Luc Walleyn would have asked for a sentence of only one month. Does it seem possible that Prosecutor Welleyn's case against his countrymen was less than vigorously pursued?

    Under the headline "Even peacekeepers are looting", USA Today reported that "the last vestiges of stability are crumbling in the war torn west African nation [of Liberia], as even peacekeepers join gun-toting street thugs in widespread looting and destruction."[4]

Photograph of U.N. vehicle

    "U.S. and Bosnian officials," reported The Washington Times, "suspect that high-ranking UN officials from Jordan based in the central Bosnian towns of Bugojno and Travnik have routinely provided UN vehicles to help smugglers get contraband past checkpoints."[5]

    Why this recitation by The WINDS of UN atrocities and lawlessness? Are there not innumerable other such brutalities committed each day in the world--many more than those committed by UN peacekeepers? The answer, of course, is yes, there are--but not by an organization that aspires to be the world's police force; not by an internationally empowered body from whose decisions there will ultimately be no appeal and who will be answerable to no higher authority--whose virtual silence on the matter renders tacit approval of those atrocities as a means to an end.

    When in armed conflict or policing actions there is no accountability, atrocities become a commonplace activity to gain the desired objective. How is it that so-called "rules of engagement" could possibly restrain the Secretary General's use of his new powers should he decide to engage them in a manner outside the scope of such rules? Would the Security Council invoke such restraint, keeping in mind that there are only twelve members in that body and only four of them permanent and having veto power?--they who actually play the music to which the Secretary General dances?--they whose "peacekeeping" forces are responsible for an astounding legacy of atrocities wherever they are deployed? Is there any supervising authority that could be entrusted to exercise such integrity? It seems that the UN's philosophy is that the fox actually can guard the hen house--if the fox owns it.

    What possible form could any effective accountability take when an invasion force only forty-eight hours in the making lands on a "foreign" shore? And what nature would atrocities assume in the environment of such an invasion when performed by men at the height of a short-notice-combat-adrenaline rush when the objects of their assault are "foreigners", not their own countrymen?

    It does not take the intellect of the proverbial rocket scientist to determine that those chosen by the UN to "police" a given emergency within the borders of a sovereign nation cannot, in practicality, be citizens of that nation. An instinctive gut level "conflict of interest" would make it quite impossible for commanders to depend on a soldier turning a weapon upon his fellow countrymen.

    Imagine a scenario where the UN orders conscripted members of the U.S. Army or National Guard to fire upon largely unarmed American citizens--commanding American to kill American. While it is true that this has happened in some isolated cases (excepting the Civil War) mutiny would rapidly become the norm as the majority of the young men would openly refuse to obey. Now -- imagine a UN contingent of Somalis deployed to the U.S. under the same order. The image begs no description.


    To achieve their goal of becoming the world's police force the UN must logically make the task even attainable and, at the same time, ensure the safety, as far as possible, of their "policemen". How can this be accomplished with countries whose civilian populations are armed with private weapons?

    In a UN document on the prevention of crime[6] it becomes quite clear that, contrary to the organization's claims, they have every intention of imposing their domestic arms control agenda within the borders of sovereign nations. In that document they stress "the urgent need for effective strategies to ensure the proper regulation of firearms at both national and transnational levels;" [emphasis supplied].

    It must be kept in mind that when these documents refer to "national" (as opposed to transnational) they are speaking of the realm within a given nation and a situation that may not extend beyond its borders. The UN, in its expanding capacity in the emerging world government, is quite intent upon penetrating every national border with impunity. When they presume to regulate anything on a national level, they effectively nullify the sovereignty of that nation and set an international precedent that can be repeated at will.


With the passing of the cold war era and a shift from inter-State military conflicts to insecurity resulting from violent crime, the United Nations is turning its attention to a class of armament that is killing more people than major weapons -- namely, small, civilian-owned firearms. Such arms are increasingly associated with crime, accidents and suicides, and form a major source of illicit profits for transnational criminal networks.[7]

    This sounds as if their goal is to assure that "major weapons" (theirs perhaps) must have exclusive right to killing the most people.

    An interesting note is that one of the coordinators of the UN's civilian-owned firearms study is "Stewart Allen, Chief of the Intelligence Division of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms of the United States Department of the Treasury." Is it not portentous that the UN has chosen as an integral part of their thrust to control private weapons a high official of a U.S. organization of which a former BATF official said, in reference to their actions in the Waco raid, that they were worse criminals than those they were attempting to arrest?

    Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, in a speech to the Stimson Center said, "I am proposing that we broaden our efforts to crack down on illicit firearms trafficking." [8] It has been recognized that terms like "illicit" when used in such a context by government takes on a sliding definition to mean whatever they desire at any given moment.

    When the average American hears the President or Secretary of State use that term, do they picture the hunting rifle in their gun closet or the handgun they have for personal protection? Or is it the "file footage" of AK-47 assault rifles they believe their government is referring to? This conditioned response is precisely what is intended. "Of course, they're not referring to MY guns."

    In a document, drafted in May of last year by the United Nations Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice[9] is "a strongly worded text by which the General Assembly would urge States to move decisively...." Very clearly delineated are the things in which States would move "decisively."

"The growing use of handguns and other firearms in crime, suicide and accidents," the press release says, "prompted this...resolution on firearm regulation, under which the Commission urged States to consider regulatory approaches to civilian-owned firearms that would cover their storage, transport, licensing, import and export....

"Before the Commission was a 137-page first-ever United Nations study of how countries deal with civilian firearms issues. The preliminary draft contains the results of a 14-month survey of 46 countries, covering gun ownership, regulation and penalties...."

    They also have a plan for "a licensing system, including the licensing of firearm businesses and a recordkeeping system." [UN Press Release SOC/CP/198].

Photograph of the Jerusalem 
U.N. Building entrance

    It has been put forth in previous WINDS articles (and a multitude of other sources) that the United Nations' unexpressed but transparently obvious purpose is to establish itself not only as the moving force, but also as the enforcement arm of a one-world government. It is also well known that governments in general know that the best and most efficient way of creating acceptance of a totalitarian state is to manufacture a crisis of such magnitude that people are willing to give up whatever rights they have left in order to gain security from the artificial crisis. One can rightfully ask if Rwanda were not more than just a convenient (created?) excuse for the establishment of something that the UN has wanted for years. To paraphrase J. Robert Oppenheimer, the principle architect of the atomic bomb, it presents a politically "sweet solution". The authors of the New World agenda want everyone to know that there is a problem. They just don't want them to know who is the real cause of it.

    For those who still may entertain doubt as to the global, one-world government intentions of those behind the scenes who are running the agenda for the United Nations, let us look at a summary of just the facts submitted in official UN documents.

    It is plain that they are already acting in the capacity of an international police force, regarding the "peacekeeping operations" being carried out around the world. They are also planning reforms within and among many nations. Those reforms are in the form of "26 new project proposals for technical cooperation projects, including":

    Does anyone get the impression that they are using Third World countries for practice before moving up the scale?

    To complete the scenario of a totally sufficient world government there is also the UN proposal for an International Criminal Court (ICC) which would be far-reaching in its apparent ability to violate national borders. As Senator John Ashcroft (R-Mo) put it, in a June 12th press conference attended by, among others, former Reagan Attorney General Edwin Meese, "In its current form, the proposed ICC neither reflects, nor guarantees, the protections of the Bill of Rights. Americans could be dragged before this court and denied their very rights as citizens of our free country." Apparently, Senator Ashcroft has not awakened to the fact that the Bill of Rights has little or no more current efficacy than all those treaties we signed with the American Indian nations.

    The subheadings of the UN press release delineating the categories of intended action by the world body have the "look and feel" of the makings of an international constitution, or at least the basis of a legal foundation for one. Those subheadings are:

    This all comes under the aegis of the "United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders."[6] Note that the categories of offence are not war crimes which has been traditionally the only "law enforcement" role previously afforded the United Nations and the World Court. These are criminal violations that have been formerly handled strictly by the countries in which they were committed. Here is a world organization, little by little, usurping the role of lawmaker, judge and executioner of sentence in jurisdictions formerly reserved to the nations individually. National sovereignty is an endangered species on the brink of extinction.

    So utterly invasive are the tenets of the UN's Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders that it should be understood that when they address the subject of children they are talking about YOUR children--NOT children in another country over there somewhere. The United Nations is a fair and equal opportunity organization. They intend to plunder the liberties of all without regard to race, creed, religion or nationality.

    Hillary's Global Village is, as they used to say of an artillery barrage in Viet Nam: "Incoming!"

    At the outset of this article it was mentioned that the United Nations headquarters for Israel sits atop the ancient hill where Judas finalized his contract to betray Christ. It might also be noted that somewhere along the bottom of the north face of that same hill lies the Potter's Field--the site where Judas hanged himself. It would seem that there is a very real sense of poetry involved with universal justice.

    An apostle of the One Whom Judas betrayed once proclaimed, "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man [nation, world] soweth, that shall he also reap." Galatians 6:7.

    Paul Harvey once said after relating a news story of a particularly heinous crime involving the sexual abuse and murder of several young children, that if this world is, as some think it to be, an experiment to illustrate whether or not man is capable of governing his own affairs--"don't you think the angels have seen enough?"

    The answer to that question, Mr. Harvey, is a resounding "Yes". What we are witnessing is the end of a six-millennium trial that began when mankind decided to go it alone and One of great mercy is about to terminate the experiment.

"The end is not coming--it has arrived." [10]




2. The Village Voice, June 24, 1995

3. The New American, "The Beasts in Blue Berets", September 29, 1997.

4. USA Today, August 12, 1996.

5. The Washington Times, August 9, 1996.

6. Implementation of the resolutions and recommendations of the Ninth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders.


8. Remarks to the Stimson Center, Washington, DC, June 10, 1998.


10. Shillum


Written 06/24/98


Go to top

Disclaimer: APFN is not responsible for the accuracy of material on 'The Winds'
and does not necessarily endorse the views expressed within their web pages.

This site is in the public domain.