Printer Friendly

U.S. defenders or UN enforcers? The U.S. military is currently being used as the enforcement arm of the United Nations. America's Armed Forces must be restored to their only proper role: national defense.

As a nation that values its independence, we should never have joined the United Nations. In the immediate aftermath of World War II, virtually every person alive had been affected by the carnage and desperately wanted to avoid another global conflict. Leading advocates of world rule--in the media, among government leaders, and elsewhere--took advantage of this mind-set to spread the notion that virtually any proposal was worth trying in order to avoid a similar calamity in the future. In this atmosphere, world government planners presented the United Nations Charter to Congress and the American people.

The Charter was carried to Washington from the UN's San Francisco founding conference by State Department official Alger Hiss, who had contributed mightily to creating it and who was later shown to have been a traitorous agent of the Soviet Union. After only two days of formal hearings, the Senate approved the Charter by a vote of 89 to 2 on July 28. That cursory examination stands in stark contrast to the nine months of Senate deliberations that led to the rejection of the League of Nations charter in 1919.

Most Americans have been assured that the Charter is a "peace document." But the Charter is in reality a war document. Perhaps the most glaring indication that this is so appears in Article 25, which states: "Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter."

Doesn't that requirement place the Security Council resolutions above the U.S. Constitution? Defenders of the Charter insist that there's nothing to worry about because the U.S. can veto Security Council resolutions. But guarding our nation with the veto presupposes that its wielders in our government--a long parade of whom have championed the UN--will make policy decisions based on U.S. interests.

The consistent attitude held by those entrusted to lead our nation over the past 60 years has never been more clearly expressed than by recently replaced Secretary of State Colin Powell. A mere three weeks after assuming his office, he journeyed to UN headquarters in New York where he met with Secretary-General Kofi Annan and then told reporters: "With respect to U.S. policy, when it comes to our role as a member of the Security Council, we are bound by UN resolutions."

George W. Bush essentially repeated Powell's assertion when he addressed the UN General Assembly on September 12, 2002. On that occasion he asked rhetorically, "Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence?" Answering his own question, he said, "We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced." One month later, both houses of Congress overwhelmingly approved granting Mr. Bush power to "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

On March 20, 2003, the day after our forces invaded Iraq, U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Negroponte delivered a formal letter to the Security Council that stated: "The actions being taken are authorized under existing Council resolutions, including its resolutions 678 (1990) and 687 (1991)." Our invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a UN operation from its outset. No one should ignore the fact that one obtains authorization from a superior, not an inferior.

Used and Abused

The United States has effectively become the UN's enforcer, and our own leaders are delivering America's military to the world body for that purpose. Under the Charter's Article 43, member nations are required "to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities ... for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security."

While a few other nations send token forces for UN missions, our nation repeatedly sends huge numbers of men and amounts of materiel into UN operations. This means that members of the U.S. military can be placed at the disposal of the UN for missions described by the Charter as "necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security." Should a service member protest being transferred to a UN command, he will face a court martial and will either cave in or be removed from the service. This is precisely what happened when Army Specialist Michael New refused to don UN patches and headgear in 1995 after his unit had been ordered to a UN mission in Macedonia.

There's nothing new about moving U.S. personnel in and out of various UN commands. Ever since 1950, all service personnel serving in South Korea (36,000 are currently stationed there) have served in the "United Nations Command." They haven't been forced to wear blue helmets or UN insignia but, as confirmed by the cover page of Army General Robert W. Sennewald's speech delivered in Korea in 1982, they serve under the UN. The general is identified as "Commander-in-Chief, United Nations Command."

When entering our nation's armed forces, recruits at all levels are required to swear an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution and it alone. In what amounts to a huge betrayal of trust, no recruit at any level is informed that he or she might be transferred to UN duty. Years ago, an inquiry by this writer to a high official in the Pentagon confirmed that possible transfer to an identifiable UN unit is never mentioned during the recruiting process.

This betrayal occurs not only with those sent to Korea. Transfers of personnel are regularly mandated in and out of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) without informing the personnel that they have been assigned to a UN regional affiliate. Chapter VIII of the UN Charter states that "the Security Council shall, where appropriate, utilize such regional arrangements for enforcement action under its authority." It further mandates that the "Security Council shall at all times be kept fully informed of activities undertaken or in contemplation...." (Emphasis added.)

If the men and women in the uniform of the United States are required to serve in operations under UN authority, is it not reasonable to conclude that our nation's military is a division of the UN?

Warnings Were Issued in 1945

Minnesota's Henrik Shipstead was one of the two senators who opposed ratification of the Charter 60 years ago. On July 27, 1945, he told his colleagues that he found authority in the Charter for our president to take us into a UN-approved war at any time. "The control of the war power, as provided by in the Constitution, must remain in Congress if the United States is going to remain a republic," warned Shipstead.

Another strong voice against ratification came from former U.S. Ambassador to Mexico and former State Department official J. Reuben Clark, who found that Article II of the Charter authorized "the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII." Chapter VII (Articles 39 to 51) states that the Security Council "may take such action by air, sea, or land forces ... that may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of the Members of the United Nations." After studying the Charter in 1945, Clark concluded: "It is true the Charter provides force to bring peace, but such use of force is itself war.... The Charter is built to prepare for war, not to promote peace.... Not only does the Charter Organization not prevent future wars, but it makes it practically certain that we shall have future wars."

UN Participation Act

Five months after the Charter was ratified, Congress passed the little-known and extremely dangerous "United Nations Participation Act." Two separate clauses in Section 6 of that act authorize the president to assign U.S. forces to the United Nations. The first gives the president authority to make "available to the Security Council on its call" forces to create what would constitute a UN standing army "in accordance with article 43 of said Charter." But this grant of power to the president "shall be subject to the approval of Congress."

The second clause, however, states that the "President shall not [emphasis added] be deemed to require the authorization of Congress" to supply armed forces "under Article 42 of said Charter." Starting with a Security Council resolution calling on member nations to provide men and armaments to repel the invasion of South Korea in 1950, the United States has frequently assigned our armed forces to "carry out the decisions of the Security Council." In the Korean conflict, the display of UN flags made the UN's role very visible.

After examining the UN Participation Act, Senator Robert Taft (R-Ohio) warned that it would "give the President complete power to involve this country in war," and it would make Congress "merely an advisory body ... in which men merely stand up and shout." The Ohio statesman, who regretted his July vote in favor of ratification of the Charter, eventually concluded: "The UN is a trap; let's go it alone." He had mistakenly assumed that the Security Council veto power possessed by the United States "was a veto by the Congress." It wasn't. This has been confirmed many times in subsequent years, none more dramatically than when President George H.W. Bush told a 1992 Texas rally cheering for his reelection, "I didn't have to get permission from some old goat in Congress to ... kick Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait."

Montana Senator Burton Wheeler, like Taft, also saw the danger in the UN Participation Act and stated that "the President is being given power not only to protect American lives and property" but also the lives and property of persons in other nations "wherever and whenever the Council determines that there is an aggression." But the Senate ignored the few who gave these warnings and approved the Participation Act by a vote of 65 to 7 on December 20, 1945.

During House debate on the measure, Kentucky Representative John Marshall Robison insisted that it was "violative of the provision of the Constitution of the United States which expressly provides that Congress alone shall have the power to declare war." Illinois Rep. Jessie Sumner said the measure "authorizes the surrender to the new world supergovernment of enough American men and military might to conquer any nation in the world, including the United States." And Ohio's Frederick Smith pointed out that it struck "at the very heart of the Constitution [because] the power to declare war shall be taken from Congress and given to the President." But the House approved the measure by a vote of 344 to 15.

U.S. Leaders Bolster UN Dominance

If a nation loses control of its military power, it is fair game for being forced under someone else's domination, either under another nation or, in this instance, under a world government. Tragically, our nation is well along in ceding its military power to the UN:

* Led by U.S. officials, 14 European nations joined with the U.S. and Canada to create NATO in 1949. Labeling the pact "an essential measure for strengthening the United Nations," Secretary of State Dean Acheson stated that NATO "is a collective self-defense arrangement ... recognized in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter." In addition, Article 53 of the UN Charter states that no action by any regional arrangement such as NATO may be undertaken "without the authorization of the Security Council." And Article 54 of the UN Charter mandates that the Security Council must "be kept fully informed of activities undertaken or in contemplation" by such agencies as NATO. American forces have been assigned to the UN's NATO ever since 1949.

* When Communist-controlled North Korea invaded non-Communist South Korea on June 25, 1950, President Truman immediately sent U.S. forces to rescue Americans caught in the midst of the hostilities. This is a proper use of the military. But on July 27, the UN Security Council issued Resolution 83 calling on "all member nations" to aid in defense of South Korea. Mr. Truman immediately complied, and members of Congress cheered his decision. But Robert Taft, now a UN adversary, openly opposed the president's action. He called it "a complete usurpation by the president of authority to use the Armed Forces of this country" and insisted that only Congress could send our forces to war. But when confronted with objections, Truman argued: "If I can send troops to NATO, I can send them to Korea."

The Korean War, actually won militarily by U.S. forces until UN directives forced a reversal, has never been settled. As one wag put it, "We snatched defeat from the jaws of victory." The state of war begun in 1950 actually still exists--courtesy of the United Nations.

* In 1954, led by the United States, eight nations agreed in Manila to create the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), a carbon copy of the NATO agreement. Soon, U.S. forces were sent to South Vietnam to oppose Communist North Vietnam's aggression. When hostilities escalated dramatically, State Department Bulletin 8062 of March 28, 1966 confirmed that the SEATO pact, "designed as a collective defense arrangement under Article 51 of the UN Charter, ... authorizes the President's action." On November 26, 1966, Secretary of State Dean Rusk announced that our nation's "fundamental SEATO obligation has from the outset guided our action in South Vietnam." As in Korea, our forces were contained, and a victory that could have been won was denied, because the UN was in charge.

* By 1990, a new tactic for empowering the UN had been devised by U.S. leaders. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in the summer of 1990, President George H.W. Bush initially lacked UN authorization to send American forces against Iraq, so he went to the UN and asked for it. The UN promptly complied by issuing Security Council Resolution 678 on November 29, 1990 authorizing the action. Mr. Bush adamantly rejected the notion that he needed congressional authorization for the invasion. And he repeatedly stated that he wanted to build a "new world order," which he said could only be accomplished through a "reinvigorated" UN.

* During the 1990s, U.S. forces were dispatched to "carry out" UN Security Council "decisions" in Haiti, Somalia, and Bosnia. In April 1994, a British troop commander (General Sir Michael Rose), a UN diplomat from Japan (Yashusi Akashi), and the UN secretary-general (Boutros Boutros-Ghali) ordered U.S. fighter planes from NATO to attack positions in Bosnia. U.S. Admiral Leighton Smith expressed great delight that his men were "carrying out the mandates of the secretary-general."

* On March 19, 2003, American forces reinvaded Iraq. As noted above, the action was "authorized" by Security Council resolutions 678 and 687.

What then can any American do to reassert our nation's independence and rein in the executive branch's unconstitutional usurpations? The answer can be found in passage by Congress of H.R. 1146, a measure entitled "American Sovereignty Restoration Act." Significantly, its initial provision calls for repeal of the United Nations Participation Act. Other portions of the measure require withdrawal of our nation from various UN agencies and cancellation of all government funding of UN operations except for the few dollars that might be needed while the complete withdrawal of America from the world body is accomplished.

If our nation is to endure in freedom and independence, members of Congress must be urged to support passage of H.R. 1146.
COPYRIGHT 2005 American Opinion Publishing, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2005, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:U.S. MILITARY
Author:McManus, John F.
Publication:The New American
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:May 30, 2005
Words:2557
Previous Article:The state of the military: America has the most technologically formidable military in history, yet the burdens of serving as global policeman have...
Next Article:Emasculating the military: politically correct dictates are ever more being imposed on today's military, degrading morale, discipline, and combat...
Topics:


Related Articles
Problems With Current U.S. Policy.
Toward a New Foreign Policy.
United States Military Training Mission: A Paradigm for Regional Security.
Speech Presented to the 2001 strength through Cooperation Conference.
Toward a global police state: under both republican and democratic administrations, the U.S. government has been implementing a decades-old strategy...
Toward a new foreign policy.
Militarizing law enforcement?
Is peacekeeping a relic? Once known as peacekeepers, Canada's military has changed quite dramatically into a more robust force capable of fighting....

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters