The Fraudulence Of America’s ‘Arms Control’ Policies

The reason why America’s ‘arms control’ policies are fraudulent is that the U.S. is virtually owned (controlled) by the individuals who control its military industries — the firms that sell to their own Government, and to its vassal or ‘allied’ Governments, approximately half of all the world’s weapons-purchases. By means of, essentially, bribing public officials (with campaign donations, lobbying, industry-advertising to voters for its favored politicians, and otherwise), those individuals control virtually all of these Governments (including especially the U.S. Government itself), which is the reason also why the U.S. has 900 military bases of its own around the world (in addition to the 749 on its own soil), and spends as much on its military (not only in the fraudulently labelled ‘Defense’ Department but in its other Departments) as do all of the world’s nearly 200 other nations combined.

According to Defense News’s “Top 100 Defense Companies” “Top 100 for 2022”: All of the 5 biggest-sales-volume military manufacturers in the world are American. 6 of the top 10 are. 6 of the top 15 are. 8 of the top 20 are. 12 of the top 25 are. 12 of the top 30 are. 15 of the top 35 are. Russia’s largest is #36. 7 of the top 35 are Chinese. 26 of the top 35 are headquartered in U.S.-and-allied countries that buy mainly U.S.-made weapons.

Unlike other types of companies, which sell exclusively or mainly to the public (consumers, including to other companies), military manufacturers sell only or mainly to their own and to allied Governments; and, therefore, in order to control their own sales-volumes (which is an objective of any for-profit corporation), they need to, essentially, own these Governments by means of corruption, which enables these countries to pretend to be democracies instead of aristocracies (which they actually are — controlled by their billionaires — who also control these companies, and the ‘news’-media there).

This is also the reason why ONLY the U.S. Department of ‘Defense’ has never been audited — all other U.S. federal Departments routinely are, each and every year.

America — UNLIKE Russia, China, and Iran — is capitalist not ONLY in non-military industries, but ALSO in military industries — the corporations that sell to Governments instead of to consumers. By being so extremely capitalistic, America is also extremely militaristic, and also extremely corrupt. It has to be, in order for its billionaires to control it, as they do.

Consequently: here is the history of America’s ‘arms control’ policies:

A sign of bad faith on the part of the United States against the Soviet Union — besides the Marshall Plan and Operation Gladio and Operation Paperclip — seems to have been America’s public refusal to accept as being anything other than ‘communist tricks’ the repeated efforts by the Soviets to restore the U.S.-U.S.S.R. joint national-security cooperation that had existed prior to 25 July 1945. America’s responses were insults, instead of welcoming the Soviet proposals and working behind the scenes with them to obtain progress toward the type of world order that FDR had intended — a world order policed by the United Nations, not by the united fascists. For example, on 19 September 1959 at the U.N. General Assembly, the Soviet Representative headlined “Declaration of the Soviet Government on General and Complete Disarmament” and presented a series of proposals including:

“Declaration of the Soviet Government on General and Complete Disarmament”

September 19, 1959

P. 14:

The Soviet Government proposes that the programme of general and complete disarmament should be carried out within as short a time-limit as possible — within a period of four years.

The following measures are proposed for the first stage:

The reduction, under appropriate control, of the strength of the armed forces of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United States of America and the People’s Republic of China to the level of 1.7 million men, and of the United Kingdom and France to the level of 650,000 men;

The reduction of the armed forces of other states to levels to be agreed upon at a special session of the United Nations General Assembly or at a world conference on general and complete disarmament;

The reduction of the armaments and military equipment at the disposal of the armed forces of States to the extent necessary to ensure that the remaining quantity of armaments corresponds to the level fixed for the armed forces.

The following is proposed for the second stage:

The completion of the disbandment of the armed forces retained by States;

The elimination of all military bases in the territories of foreign States; troops and military personnel shall be withdrawn from the territories of foreign States to within their own national frontiers and shall be disbanded.

The following is for the third stage:

The destruction of all types of nuclear weapons and missiles;

The destruction of air force equipment;

The entry into force of the prohibition on the production, possession and storage of means of chemical and biological weapons in the possession of States shall be removed and destroyed under international supervision;

Scientific research for military purposes and the development of weapons and military equipment shall be prohibited;

War ministries, general staffs and all military and paramilitary establishments and organizations shall be abolished;

All military courses and training shall be terminated. States shall prohibit by law the military education of young people.

In accordance with their respective constitutional procedures, States shall enact legislation abolishing military service in all of its forms — compulsory, voluntary, by recruitment, and so forth. …

(4) Conclusion of a non-aggression pact between the member States of NATO and the member States of the Warsaw Treaty

knotted gun
Non-Violence, also known as The Knotted Gun, is a bronze sculpture by Swedish artist Carl Fredrik Reuterswärd of an oversized Colt Python .357 Magnum revolver with its muzzle tied in a knot, at the United Nations headquarters in New York City

The U.S. response came a few months later at the “Conference of the Ten Nation Committee on Disarmament”:

“Conference of the Ten Nation Committee on Disarmament”

22 March 1960

Final Verbatim Record of the Sixth Meeting

Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva

P. 36:

Mr.  Eaton (United States of America): I have no intention of entering into this discussion on foreign bases. I think the discussions that we have had here this morning have indicated that we shall run into political problems at the very earliest stage, problems on which earlier conferences have foundered. I would only say that the forces of my Government are only employed outside my own country and within my own country for the purpose of defending both ourselves and those of our allies who wish to be associated with us, who welcome our troops as a part of theirs and as a part of the allied defences, and for no other reason. Whenever the time comes when these troops need not be employed, for defensive purposes only, there need be no doubt in the mind of anyone here that those forces will be withdrawn.

“Conference of the Ten Nation Committee on Disarmament”

24 June 1960

Final Verbatim Record of the Forty-Sixth Meeting, Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, p. 4:

Mr. Nosek (Czechoslovakia): What did Mr. Eaton propose? He proposed the introduction of control measures. … exclusively with measures of control, that is with the old and well-known requirement of the United States — the introduction of control over armaments. Apparently with a view to misleading world public opinion, which requires a concrete discussion of general and complete disarmament, the United States representatives are beginning to prefer — for tactical reasons — to call those measures not “partial measures” but “initial steps” on the road to general and complete disarmament under effective international control.

“The United Nations and Space Security: Conflicting Mandates,” p. 17:

This [obfuscation and evasion by the U.S. (which on p. 16 was referred to as merely  “proposals directed towards the establishment of control without disarmament”)] ultimately led [on 28 June 1960] to the USSR, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Romania not attending the 48th meeting of the Ten-Nation Committee, which signalled the end of these discussions in the Committee.

The U.S. Government refused to discuss the Soviet Union’s proposal for all war-weaponry to be placed under U.N. command, and decision-making only by the U.N., to enforce only U.N. laws — no longer under the command of individual nations.

Who benefited from America’s refusal even to discuss what had been U.S. President FDR’s aim for the post-WW-II world? The beneficiaries are what Eisenhower when leaving office called the “military industrial complex” and are basically America’s hundred largest military contractors, especially the owners of the largest weapons-manufacturing firms such as Lockheed. Ike had served them well.

Meanwhile, the German industrialists (such as this) who were likeliest to have been the individuals who had funded Hitler’s rise to power, were let off scot-free at the Nuremberg Tribunals after the war was over. Furthermore, as Bishnu Pathak documented in his 21 September 2020 “Nuremberg Tribunal: A Precedent for Victor’s Justice”, those Tribunals were, even at the time, widely condemned even by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and by the chief U.S. Prosecutor at the Tribunals, as being a “sanctimonious fraud,” a “high-grade lynching party” and nothing more than victors’ ‘justice’, instead of any respectable precedent-setter for the U.N., but Truman and the other leaders of the victor-powers simply did not care — and the U.N. became built upon that acceptance of victors’ ‘justice’: no improvement. One cannot say whether FDR would have caved to that if he had not died first, but certainly the U.S. that followed after him has been the type of tyranny that he had always been scheming to prevent both for the U.S. and for the world.

Furthermore, the OECD or Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development was set up in 1948 nominally in order ‘to stimulate economic progress and world trade,’ but actually to administer the Marshall Plan. The OECD was just another anti-Soviet U.S. organization, but, since the cash that it was distributing was going to Europe, its initial membership was those countries and it was headquartered in Paris, so as not to seem to be an extension from the U.S. Government. The organization changed its name to OECD in 1961 so as to hide from historians that it had previously been called the OEEC, which was clearly traceable to the Cold War. The CIA-edited and written Wikipedia says that “In 1948, the OECD originated as the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation (OEEC),[7] led by Robert Marjolin of France, to help administer the Marshall Plan (which was rejected by the Soviet Union and its satellite states).[8]” However, it wasn’t “rejected by” them, but instead rejected them — just like the Marshall Plan itself rejected them. The Rhodesists were looking forward and expecting historians not to dig backward on this. This was their way of burying that past, so that they could deceive the public about it.

And, then, there was the American double-crossing of Mikhail Gorbachev when he ended communism in 1991 and the U.S. secretly continued the Cold War nonetheless, and the post-1991 U.S. coups such as against neutralist Ukraine on Russia’s border, in February 2014. That historic event, on 24 February 1990, this double-crossing, conclusively proved that the Cold War wasn’t really about communism versus capitalism but was only about extending the U.S. empire over the entire world: U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush secretly told West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl that though Germany would soon be reunified and all of it be a U.S. ally, and the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact and its communism would all soon end, so that the Cold War itself would soon end on Russia’s side, America and its allies would nonetheless not end it, but would instead continue it, until Russia itself will be conquered and absorbed into the American empire.

In “Vladimir Putin’s Interview with Le Figaro”, on 29 May 2017 (also shown in this video), he noted this, and summarily discussed its implications:

When the Soviet Union ceased to exist, Western politicians told us (it was not documented on paper but stated quite clearly) that NATO would not expand to the East. Some German politicians at the time even proposed creating a new security system in Europe that would involve the United States and, by the way, Russia.

If that had been done, we would not have the problems we have had in recent years, which is NATO’s expansion to the East up to our borders, the advance of military infrastructure to our borders. Perhaps, the United States would not have unilaterally withdrawn from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

This treaty was a cornerstone of current and future security. The missile defence facilities in Europe – in Poland and Romania – would not have been built, which, undoubtedly, creates a threat to our strategic nuclear forces and disrupts the strategic balance – an extremely dangerous development for international security. Perhaps all this would not have happened. But it did, and we cannot rewind history, it is not a movie.

That double-crossing event disproved blatantly the lie behind the Cold War — that it was/is ideological instead of imperialistic on the American side. However, even before the fact of this lie became exposed privately on 24 February 1990, the U.S. Government had been behaving as an aspiring world-imperialist, ever since 25 July 1945.

And, now, today, the U.S.-and-allied regimes have the nerve to allege, by lying, that Russia is the aggressor and is the likelier to initiate a nuclear WW III, but actually America itself is.

Reposts are welcomed with the reference to ORIENTAL REVIEW.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply