Under Choi's plan, creating the UN's standby army would require some 70 different countries to supply 100,000 troops to help enforce UN rules and regulations. (WUCA comment: i.e., world dictatorship by global bureaucrats.) Choi said that over the mid and long-term he would like to see the establishment of a UN standing army, but the more likely immediate scenario would be the creation of a "standby army system" built around regional interests.

In Choi's system arrangement, UN member countries would set aside a certain number of troops to serve as a "form of standin army" capable of intervening in regional conflicts under the direction of the United Nations Security Council. Choi's call for a UN military capability seems to confirm charges by the UN's critics that the international body is a lot more than just a diplomatic forum.

During the 50 years since the UN's founding, opponents have charged that it was a vehicle that sooner or later would be used by international elites to forcibly impose its will around the globe.

"A United Nations standing army is not in the immediate future," predicted retired history professor Gordon Cooper, who has studied UN operations. "But it is safe to say that it is a lot closer today than it was in 1947 when the UN first convened."

As it now stands, many countries have already met Choi's manpower requirements with the commitment of some 100,000 troops. Choi's plans became public last April after a translation of his interview was distributed by the U.S. Information Agency. The standby army scheme has the support of the Clinton administration. But even though the commitment is not legally binding on the U.S., many longtime UN critics are increasingly troubled.

"In the 1950's and 1960's, anyone who voiced fears about the potential for the UN to interfere with national sovereignty' was ridiculed as a political crackpot,' said Cooper. "And now UN officials talk openly about the need to intervene militarily wherever it wants." (WUCA comment: Unfortunately, the 'crackpots," who had studied the true intentions of the UN from before the day it was officially created in 1945, were 100% correct all along.)

Two years ago the UN's Commission on World Governance issued a report that called for imposing global taxes to fund the UN's operations. If adopted, the tax would be applied to international airline tickets and to every financial transaction involving the conversion of one country's currency into another. With the passage of time and the growing acceptance of the United Nations by Western political leaders, the prospect of global governance by a council of international leaders appears increasingly likely.

The official position of the U.S. mission to the United Nations opposes a permanent standing army, but recent actions by the Clinton administration have brought that position into question. (WUCA comment: We know that Clinton is a globalist to the core, a member of the CFR, TLC, and the Bilderbergers - all organizations that have long worked for the elimination of national sovereignty in favor of a world government based on a socialist model diametrically opposed to the American concept of individual rights guaranteed by a strong Constitution. The only reason Clinton may not come out in favor of a standing UN army to enforce its dictates is because he knows it would not be politically popular in this country to commit U.S. forces to such an endeavor. As people become more informed about the REAL purpose of the UN, there is growing support to have the U.S. terminate membership in this authoritarian and useless organization, and have its headquarters moved to a city more fitting to its character -- like Peking, Red China.

Last October the State Department gave $200,000 from its voluntary peacekeeping account for the UN's rapid deployment mission headquarters being organized to set up a command-and-control center for UN forces. State Department spokesmen claim this was in keeping with the administration's support of UN efforts to organize standby troops in member countries for quick deployment in peacekeeping operations. The contribution was to help facilitate a speedier deployment of forces once the Security Council approves a UN peacekeeping operation.

Many American political leaders are concerned about where the UN is headed. Senator Rod Grams, R-MN, of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on international operations, questions the real motives of the UN. "They keep saying that there will be no standing army, but there is proof that there is a lot of planning going on to make this a reality," says the Senator. "This is incrementalism at its worst. We are strongly opposed to this."