“The Architects of the New World Order”

“PART III” of

“The New World Order”
and the destruction of Australian Industry

By Jeremy Lee

Little understood by many, the unfolding programme for a single, centralised World Order has been remorselessly edged into place, piece by piece, both in the Western world and in the Communist bloc.  It is only since the research work of Dr. Anthony Sutton, of the Hoover Institution for War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University, California, has gained attention that the close financial and trade links between East and West since 1917 have been revealed, offering a more truthful picture than the one usually accepted.

Some background to key developments in the world government movement both in the West and behind what was once the Iron Curtain is important.
 

The 1917 Revolution

 
From the October 1917 revolution in Russia onwards, the USSR devoted enormous energy and resources to suborning the West’s colonial structure in the heavily populated areas of Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America (The Third World).  The First International, in March 1919, drew attention to the colonial question in “The Platform of the Communist International”, drafted by Bukharin.  By the Second Congress of the Comintern, in July 1920, Lenin had himself drafted the “Theses on the National and Colonial Questions”, which included these words:  ” …. The Com­munist International has the duty of supporting the revolu­tionary movement in the colonies and backward countries only with the object of rallying the constituent elements of
 

– 49 –

the future proletarian parties — which will be truly commu­nist …”  This was summed up by Stalin, in a speech at Sverdlov University in April 1924, thus:

“Leninism … recognised the existence of revolutionary capacities in the national liberation movement of the oppressed countries, and the possibility of using these for overthrowing the common enemy, for overthrowing imperialism …”

 

Nikolai Lenin,

Nikolai Lenin, who first advocated a plan for global direction in a New World Order, as confirmed by Soviet economist Ernest Obminsky in 1978.

Building the Campaign

 
The First and Second Internationals, following so soon after the Revolution, were followed by the BAKU Conference in 1920, also entitled “The First Congress of the Peoples of the East”, and was in turn a forerunner of the Soviet sponsored Afro-Asian Solidarity Conferences.  A university was also established at Baku in 1921 for the indoctrination of student revolutionaries from the East.

The Third Comintern Congress, in May 1921, established
 

– 50 –

an “Eastern Commission” to formulate policy on the Negro Question.  David Jones, founder of the Communist Party of South Africa (CPSA), focussed the Comintern’s attention on the role South African Communists could play for the strat­egic penetration of sub-Saharan Africa.  Specific instructions were given to the French Communist Party (CPF) to ap­proach black troops in the French forces, rallying them “to the struggle against the colonial regime, and through them getting into touch with the people of the French colonies …”  (The Communist International  1919-1943, J. Degras, Ox­ford University Press).

The Fourth Comintern Congress (Nov-Dec 1922) took the matter even further:

“Every Communist Party of the countries possessing colo­nies must take over the task of organising systematic moral and material assistance for the proletarian and revolutionary move­ment in the colonies. …”  It placed special emphasis on Africa … “The Fourth Congress declares it the special duty of Communists to apply the “Theses on the Colonial Question” to the Negro problem also and to support “every form of the Negro movement which undermines or weakens capitalism, or hampers its further penetration …”

The establishment of a “Peasant Intematonal” (Ho Chih Minh was a member of the Secretariat) was discussed.  Three Special Committees — a National, Eastern and Col­onial — were formed, and a “Negro Propaganda Commis­sion”, which had representatives from the Communist Parties of France, Belgium, Great Britain and the Execu­tive Committee of the Communist International, received ten million gold francs from the Kremlin to support revo­lution in Africa (Russia and Black Africa Before World War II, Edward T. Wilson, Holmes and Meier, N.Y. 1974).

And Expanding …

 
The Fifth Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist International (ECCI) in March-April 1925, the Sixth Plenum in March 1926, the formation of “The League Against Colonial Oppression” by Willy Munzenberg, head of
 

– 51 –

the German Communist Party in 1926, all led to a “World Anti-Colonial Conference” in Brussels in February 1927.  Those attending included Pundit Nehru, Madame Sun Yat Sen, Ho Chih Minh and Lamine Senghor.  Out of this in turn “The League Against Imperialism and For Colonial Indepen­dence”, with headquarters in Berlin, and branches in Latin America, India and North Africa was established.

The Sixth Comintern Congress (July-Sept. 1928) showed the link between the anti-colonial campaign and moves to establish a world economic system.  One section of its pro­gramme, under the heading “The Struggle for the World Proletarian Dictatorship and Colonial Revolutions” stated:

“Colonial revolutions and national liberation movements play an extremely important part in the struggle against imperial­ism and the conquest of power by the working class.  In the trans­ition period colonies and semi-colonies are also important because they represent the village on a world scale vis-à-vis the industrial countries, which represent the town in the context of the world economy.  Hence the problem of organising a socialist world economy. …”

This led to the “Hamburg Conference of Negro Workers” in July 1930, with representatives from America, the West Indies and British and French colonial Africa, which set up the International Trade Union Committee of Negro Workers, whose Secretary, George Padmore, was given an office in the Kremlin.

One year later, on September 24, 1931, the Communist Party of Australia’s newspaper, The Workers’ Weekly, pub­lished an article headed “Communist Party’s Fight for Abo­rigines:  Draft Programme of Struggle Against Slavery”.  It listed 14 points for revolutionary action, concluding with the 14th:

“… The handing over to the Aborigines of large tracts of watered and fertile country, with towns, seaports, railways, roads etc., to become one or more independent Aboriginal states or republics.  The handing back to the Aborigines of all Central, Northern and North-West Australia … These Aboriginal repub­lics to be independent of Australian or other foreign powers.  To have the right to make treaties with foreign powers, including

 

– 52 –

Australia, establish their own army, governments, industries and in every way to be independent of imperialism…”

(For further essential reading on this aspect, Geoff McDonald’s highly important books Red Over Black and The Evidence, Veritas Publishing Co., Western Australia are recommended.)

Thus before the war enormous spadework had been done by the Comintern to meet Lenin’s demands.  The Lenin School of Political Warfare had been established in Moscow in 1926.
 

World War II

 
The Second World War did not reduce Communist revolutionary activity.  The Comintern itself was dissolved by Stalin on May 15, 1943 to help the cultivation of his “Uncle Joe” image.  But its functions were simply transferred to the Foreign Affairs Department of the CPSU.  The Communist Information Bureau was established in 1947, with Bureaus for Africa and Asia.  This in turn was dissolved in 1956, and replaced by three separate agencies run by the CPSU Central Committee, while a core “International Department” was run by a former Comintern Executive, Boris Ponomarev.

As the war ended, the Communists made strenuous efforts to establish sympathetic movements in the West, to strengthen their strategy on the Third World and Colonial questions.  The result was a number of organisations such as The Movement for Colonial Freedom, first sponsored by a former Communist at the London School of Economics, Professor Harold Laski, in 1946; the Southern African Freedom group, formed in 1962, whose sponsors included Fenner Brockway, John Stonehouse, Jeremy Thorpe and Anthony Wedgewood Benn, who was also a founder-member of the Movement for Colonial Freedom, and the Anti-Apartheid Movement, formed in 1960.

As the era of the fifties opened, Communism was ready to shift its attention to a programme for some type of inter­national order, built on socialism.  The scramble out of Africa by the colonial powers was in its infancy.  The first “national liberation” wars were in progress.  Both the Malay-
 

– 53 –

an campaign against Communist guerilla leader Chin Peng, and the Kenyan Mau-Mau Emergency were in motion, to be followed in the next fifteen years by the Congo, Biafra, Ethiopia, Zanzibar, Cuba, Chile and Vietnam, as well as a growing struggle in the Middle East, to become the most dangerous of them all.
 

Moscow Summit

 
The “international order” concept was first developed at a special Moscow Economic Conference, April 3—11, 1952.  Lenin himself had foreshadowed this development to follow the anti-colonial programme in these words:

Pierre Elliott Trudeau, former Canadian P.M.

Pierre Elliott Trudeau, former Canadian P.M. — led a Communist delegation to the Moscow Economic Conference in 1952.

“The more backward the country … the more difficult it is for her to pass from the old capitalist relations to socialist relations.  To the tasks of des­truction are added new, in­credibly difficult tasks, vis. organisation tasks … the or­ganisation of accounting, of the control of large enter­prises, the transformation of the whole of the state economic mechanism, into a single huge machine, into an economic organisation that will work in such a way as to enable hun­dreds of millions of people to be guided by a single plan. …”

—  (N. Lenin, Selected Works vol.7 pp. 285-287.)

In 1936 the Comintern formally presented a three stage plan for achieving world government:

(1)  Socialise the economies of all nations.
(2)  Bring about regional unions of various groupings of these socialised nations.
(3)  Amalgamate all of these regional groupings into a final world-wide union of socialist states.
 

– 54 –

It was described in these words, taken directly from the official 1936 Comintern programme:

“Dictatorship can be established only by a victory of socia­lism in different countries or groups of countries, after which the proletariat republics would unite on federal lines with those already in existence, and this system of federal unions would expand … at length forming the World Union of Socialist Soviet Republics …”

As a result of this Conference [the 1952 Moscow Summit] the Soviet delegate to the UN Social and Economic Council on July 15, 1953 declared that the USSR would assist developing countries by despatching technicians and contributing funds to UN development agencies.  It was also the start of Kruschev’s tactical “peaceful co-existence”.  At the 20th Party Congress of the CPSU (1956) Kruschev emphasized the fact that, under “peaceful co-existence” the ideological struggle continued and it was understood as encompassing international class warfare, propaganda and subversion and “wars of national liberation”.  This was, in turn, confirmed 12 years later at the huge “Tricontinental Conference” in Havana, Cuba, where the Soviet’s national liberation programme was stepped up, with the ready compliance of China, in S.E. Asia, Africa and Latin America.  The changing of the term “peaceful coexistence” to “detente” by Henry Kissinger in the ‘seventies altered nothing.
 

Communist Support For NIEO

 
But the USSR was also devoting more attention to the New International Economic Order, and, amongst a host of Soviet booklets, two in particular — Soviet economist Prof. Ernest Obminsky’s Co-Operation and M.M. Maksimova’s USSR and International Co-operation, printed in Moscow by Novosti in 1978 and ’79 respectively, confirmed that NIEO was the materialisation of Lenin’s concept.  Indeed Obminsky, one of hundreds of Soviet officials working in the UN spelt it out clearly:

“… The approach to the question of the NIEO should be a strictly historical one … It is necessary to take into account

 

– 55 –

every aspect of the dialectical interconnection between the underlying tendencies of world development and individual links … The upsurge of demands for the elimination of the “old” economic order came on the crest of the steady change in the correlation of forces in the world in favour of socialism … The very nature of the present confrontation, when it all too frequently develops into a struggle against relations of exploitation, against the capitalist order, attests to its qualitatively different content. … . the New International Economic Order cannot be anything but a mechanism possessing the ways and means of curbing the negative consequences of the capitalist method of production which is still continuing to function on part of our planet … . Equally obvious is the transitional nature of such a mechanism which can, nonetheless, in Lenin’s words, make up an “entire epoch” in the period of transition from capitalism to socialism.  Even during the preparations for the Genoa Conference in 1922, Lenin insisted on the maximum democratisation of the international economic order so as to achieve the maximum possible in conditions of the peaceful co-existence of the two world systems … the question of restructuring international economic relations on a just and equitable basis was originally put on the agenda of international affairs by the first socialist state in the world … .” (Co-operation, Ernest Obminski, Novosti Publishing House, Moscow, 1978).

Giving a paper at a Political Economy Conference on August 13, 1977, the Australian Communist leader Laurie Carmichael gave four “cornerstones” as part of a transitional programme to Socialism.  In his own words:

“The fourth foundation stone is the concept of a new world economic order.  Based on ‘independence’ and ‘non alignment’ … demanding relations between countries based on equality and so on.  This is also an inseparable part of the concept. …”

 

High-ranking Soviet Defectors

 
On April 6, 1978, Arkady Shevchenko, a senior Soviet official working for the United Nations, sprinted across 64th Street in New York jumped into a CIA car, and became yet one more defector fleeing from Communism.

Shevchenko held one of the most powerful positions in

 

– 56 –

the U.N., that of Under Secretary-General for Political and Security Council Affairs, a position which has been staffed, through agreement, by a Soviet citizen ever since the foun­ding of that organisation.

Arkady Shevchenko

Arkady Shevchenko — Defector from
top UN post …

The office Shevchenko held was responsible for three main areas of activity.  They are:

  • Control of all military and police functions of the U.N. peace-keeping forces.

  • Supervision of all disarma­ment moves on the part of member nations.

  • Control of all atomic energy ultimately entrusted to the United Nations for peaceful and “other” purposes.

Arkady Shevchenko’s subsequent evidence was sensational.  He pointed out that at the New York head­quarters of the U.N. about 700 Soviet officials were employed, ployed, 200 of whom were members of either the K.G.B. or the G.R.U. which was concerned with military intelli­gence.  In the Paris division of the United Nations, which houses UNESCO, there were 21 Soviets as permanent offi­cials, and a further 69 who worked for UNESCO as inter­national civil servants, 30 percent of whom were agents.  In Vienna, where the International Atomic Energy Agency and the International Development Organisation are based, there were 110 Russians, of whom about 40 were either full members of the K.G.B. or officials co-opted to help the spies.  Shevchenko was adamant that the United Nations was Communism’s highest spy-tower in the world.

Even more profound information came from a man who had defected earlier than Shevchenko — Anatoly Golitsyn, a major in the K.G.B. who had escaped to the West in 1961.  While in the K.G.B., Golitsyn was an expert in counter-

 

– 57 –

intelligence, working primarily against the United States and NATO.  From 1956 -1959 he was assigned to a Soviet think tank, the K.G.B. Institute, where he was privy to the inner workings of the K.G.B. and intelligence operations related to overall Soviet strategy.  Prom 1959 to 1960 he was senior analyst in the NATO section of the KGB’s Information Department.

 

Strategic Disinformation

 

In 1984 — long before ‘glasnost’ and ‘perestroika’ were ever heard of — Golitsyn published his book “New Lies for Old“.  He made the incredible prediction that the following steps would be taken by Brezhnev’s successor, who ultima­tely turned out to be Gorbachev:

  1. The condemnation of the invasion of Afghanistan and Brezhnev’s harsh treatment of dissidents.

  2. Economic reforms to bring Soviet practice more into line with Yogoslav or even, seemingly, with Western socialist models.

  3. Decentralization of economic control.

  4. Creation of individual self-managing firms.

  5. Increase of material incentives.

  6. Apparent diminishment of the party’s control over the economy.

  7. Spectacular and impressive “liberalization” and “democratisation”, including formal pronouncements about a reduc­tion in the Communist party’s role; an ostensible separation of powers between the legislative, executive and judiciary; separation of the posts of president of the Soviet Union and first secretary of the party; “reform” of the K.G.B.

  8. Amnesty of dissidents.

  9. Inclusion of Andrei Sakharov in the government in some capacity.

  10. More independence given to writers, artists and scientists.

  11. Alternative political parties formed by leading dissidents.

  12.  

    – 58 –
  13. Relaxation of censorship, publication of controversial books.

  14. Greater freedom of travel given to Soviet citizens.

Golitsyn went on to say that “liberalisation” in Eastern Europe would probably involve the return to power in Czechoslovakia of Dubcek and his associates.  If it should be extended to East Germany, demolition of the Berlin Wall might even be contemplated.
 

Gorbachev wins Nobel Peace Prize

“Perestroika” and “Glasnost” wins Gorbachev the Nobel Peace Prize


Anatoly Golitsyn warned that this “liberalisation” had been planned for tactical reasons, and would represent one of the most comprehensive disinformation progammes possible to conceive.  The concept had been regularly discussed just prior to his defection.  The chief purpose was to lull the West into a false sense of security.  He wrote in his 1984 publi-
 

– 59 –

cation

“…. Certainly, the next five years will be a period of intensive struggle.  It will be marked by a major coordinated communist offensive intended to exploit the success of the strategic disinformation program over the past 20 years and to take advantage of the crisis and mistakes it has engendered in Western policies toward the communist bloc.  The overall aim will be to bring about a major and irreversible shift in the balance of world power in favour of the bloc as a preliminary to the final ideological objective of establishing a world-wide federation of communist states…”

— “New Lies for Old”, New York, Dodd, Meade & Co. 19S4, p.337.

 

… The Clenched Fist

 
Such dialectical deceit, if it is true, would not be new to communist thinking.  One of Lenin’s colleagues, Dmitri Manuilsky, lecturing at the Lenin School of Political Warfare in 1931, said:

“War to the hilt between Communism and capitalism is in­evitable.  Today, of course, we are not strong enough to attack.  Our time will come in 20 or 30 years.  To win we shall need the element of surprise.  The bourgeoisie will have to be put to sleep, so we shall begin by launching the most spectacular peace move­ment on record.  There will be electrifying overtures and unheard-of concessions.  The capitalist countries, stupid and decadent, will rejoice in their own destruction.  They will leap at another chance to be friends.  As soon as their guard is down, we shall smash them with our clenched fist … .”

Much of what Golitsyn predicted has occurred.  It is vitally important to compare Golitsyn’s predictions with the material quoted earlier in the booklet “Co-Operation” by Obminsky, concerning the Soviet position on the New Inter­national Economic Order.
 

Gorbachev “man of the year”

 
Almost as soon as he arrived on the scene, Gorbachev became the centre of enormous publicity.  After his visit to

 

– 60 –

America during Reagan’s last year of office, opinion polls showed he was more popular than the President.  TIME magazine dubbed him “man of the year”, and he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

On October 6, 1989, The Financial Review reported:

“The Soviet Union has outlined a set of proposals that are intended to give the United Nations a greater role in preventing greater conflicts, including the creation of a chain of “War-risk-reduction-centres” around the world …  The Soviet proposals were sent to the UN Secretary-General, Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar, and presented at a news conference by the Deputy Foreign Minister, Mr. Vladmimr F. Petrovsky …  Mr. Petrovsky, making his proposals as the debate in the General Assembly continued for the eighth day, said the proposals were based on the ideas for strengthening the UN put forward last year by the Soviet President, Mr. Gorbachev …  He also called for a revival of the long-dormant Military Staff Committee, which was set up to command the peace-enforcing army provided for by the U.N. Charter.  The army was never created.”

 

“The Gulf War”

 
Eight months later Iraq invaded Kuwait, resulting in the Middle East war.  The Allied war effort was conducted under the UN flag.  Despite its call, the Soviet Union — the world’s biggest military power — did not provide one soldier.  Nor did it contribute financially to the war effort.

This is somewhat strange when one considers that, since Gorbachev came to power in 1985, Soviet military spending has increased by an average 7 percent every year.  By contrast, U.S. defence spending has fallen by approximately 12 percent over the same period.

Despite the reported economic breakdown in the USSR, the huge military machine remains intact.  Troop withdrawals from the NATO arena has not meant troop reductions, but simply re-deployment.

 

Soviet Economic Reform

 
Gorbachev has made it clear, time after time, that he is
 

– 61 –

still a committed marxist-leninist.  It seems clear that the apparent relaxation of the cold war and the Iron Curtain were necessary steps towards integrating the USSR into the New World Order.

It is probably true that the breakdown in the USSR, and the resulting demand by the satellites for autonomy has gone further than Gorbachev intended.  The demand for financial independence, and the news that one satellite was creating its own money has obviously thrown a scare into the World Order Movement.

The Financial Review, November 1, 1990, reported:

“The International Monetary Fund is considering a plan to reorganise Soviet financial controls which, if approved in Washington, is likely to provoke hostile reaction inside the Soviet Government.  The IMF proposals aim to dismantle the fiscal controls exercised by the State Planning Committee (GOSPLAN) and reestablish them in the hands of an expanded, all-powerful Ministry of Finance.  If implemented in its present form, the plan would block attempts by leaders of the republics and economic advisers to the President, Mr. Gorbachev, to decentralise economic decision-making.  An IMF taskforce has been analysing the Soviet economy since mid-Summer, following the Houston summit at which U.S., Japanese and European leaders ordered the study as a condition of aid to Moscow.  Many Soviet officials have been reluctant to agree to an I.M.F. role in economic reform.  But the importance that Mr. Gorbachev and his economic advisers Mr. Stanislas Shatahn and Mr. Nikolai Petrakov place on securing the aid has brought them into line …”

A later report said that the World Bank was hot on the heels of the International Monetary Fund in dealing with Moscow.

 

______
 
Source:  “The New World Order” and the destruction of Australian Industry By Jeremy Lee, 1991, ISBN 0 646 052462.  Published by Veritas Publishing Company Pty Ltd., Cranbrook, Western Australia.  The OCR above was made from a pdf’d scan of the book found online at the web site of the Australian League of Rights (ALOR).