DP Tool Club 17/CD_ASCQ_17_101194.iso/vrac/071194n1.zip/071194N1.TXT

Text File | 1994-06-22 | 28KB | 480 lines

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The BIRCH BARK BBS / 414-242-5070
=============================================================================
Posted with permission.
-----------------------
The New American -- July 11, 1994
Copyright 1994 -- American Opinion Publishing, Incorporated.
P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI  54913
----------------------------------
Article: Front Page

Title: "Sovereignty Sellout"

Subtitle: "PDD-25 represents a continuation of destructive presidential
           policy"
Author: John F. McManus

The United States has a new policy addressing the role of our nation's
military in international "peacekeeping." The document, known as Presidential
Decision Directive 25 (PDD-25), was signed by President Clinton on May 3rd,
but so far no one except the Clinton Administration's top officials and some
favored members of Congress have been allowed to see it. Even formal requests
citing the Freedom of Information Act's requirement that official documents
be made available within ten days have been met with form-letter acknowledg-
ments from the National Security Council. Instead of exposing this important
directive to public scrutiny, Anthony Lake, Assistant to the President for
National Security Affairs, issued a 15-page "unclassified summary" that is
supposed to satisfy members of Congress (every member was supplied with one)
and others concerned about our nation's well-being.

It would be a mistake, however, to assume that this 15-page synopsis is an
accurate summary of PDD-25. A few months ago, a close examination of the
Administration's NAFTA "summary" showed it to be markedly different from the
NAFTA agreement itself. If the Administration will provide only a synopsis of
PDD-25, it is probable that the document itself is far more subversive of
American interests than even its unclassified summary -- which itself is
frightening.

Challenged further to supply the text of PDD-25, the NSC then sent out the
text of a May 5th "press briefing" conducted by National Security Advisor
Lake. But again, no text of PDD-25 has been forthcoming. The Administration's
refusal to supply the complete document is an indication that their actions
are not in the nation's interest.

Resisting UN Entanglements

The subject matter of PDD-25 deals with America's participation in military
activities controlled by the United Nations, conditions under which U.S.
personnel would be placed in UN-led operations under foreign commanders, and
U.S. taxpayer funding of such operations.

PDD-25 is actually an updated version of PDD-13, issued in 1993. Some back-
ground about PDD-13 is essential to an understanding of the subversion that
President Clinton and his team are planning for our nation. On August 5, 1993
the Washington Post stated that the new policy directive known as PDD-13
called for U.S. support for a "rapid expansion" of the UN's "peace enforce-
ment operations around the world."

Two weeks later, on August 18, 1993, the New York Times noted that PDD-13
amounted to a significant departure from "long-standing tradition" regarding
American forces under American commanders and that "the Clinton Administra-
tion is considering an expanded role in United Nations peacekeeping operations
that would include having Americans serve under foreign commanders on a regu-
lar basis."

Early responses concerning PDD-13 from conservative congressmen were sharp
and to the point. After he read a report about the proposed PDD-13 appearing
in the September 20, 1993 issue of The New American, Representative Bill
Goodling (R-PA) sent a strong letter to the President cosigned by 32 House
colleagues. Expressing profound concern over Mr. Clinton's intentions regard-
ing PDD-13, the letter stated in part:

        It has been reported you are considering a change in the
        traditional policy of military leadership as it relates to
        the deployment of troops under foreign command. It is our
        understanding you have under consideration an executive
        directive which would authorize deployment of U.S. troops
        under foreign command in missions reported to involve combat.
        We have serious reservations concerning such a monumental
        change in U.S. foreign and military policy....

        We ask you to consider whether the attempt of the U.N. to
        redefine itself is compatible with U.S. interests.... By
        issuing a blank check committing U.S. troops to the U.N.
        under foreign command, you would in effect be making U.N.
        initiatives U.S. commitments, and U.N. conflicts U.S. conflicts,
        while forfeiting the leadership of the troops on the ground....

Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan added his own thoughts about the planned
policy change:

        ... the "Clinton Doctrine," as defined in PDD-13, is a surrender
        of U.S. sovereignty, [and] a betrayal of the ideas upon which
        our republic was founded. It is a formula for making American
        soldiers Hessians of an imperial army, whose interventions could
        make America the most hated nation on Earth. How many times do
        we have to learn the lesson: How other nations govern themselves
        is not our business. The idea of endless spilling of American
        blood chasing would-be dictators and warlords around the world --
        to guarantee the survival, or return, of regimes such as Father
        Jean-Bertrand Aristide's in Haiti -- is an absurd redefinition
        of U.S. national interest.

On October 5th, Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) waded in with his comments about
the President's plans:

        The Clinton Administration appears dedicated to sending the U.S.
        military into the dangerous seas of multinational peacekeeping
        in an effort to elevate the status of the United Nations into the
        guardian arbiter of the New World Order. Key to this vision of the
        world is creation of a new world army whose singular purpose is
        to enforce the whims of the arcane United Nations Security Council.
        The Administration's effort to create a new vision for the U.S.
        military is embodied, I fear, in ... PDD-13. Under PDD-13, the
        United States becomes the trainer and bill-payer of an effort to
        create a military command structure for the Secretary General of
        the United Nations.

Back to the Drawing Board

Such forceful protests from influential congressmen and commentators sent
the President and his staff retreating to their White House drawing board
to produce a revision to PDD-13, the new PDD-25. Why didn't they drop the
whole idea in the face of such legitimate opposition? The answer is simple:
They and their Insider overlords are determined to sacrifice the sovereignty
of this nation on the altar of an emerging world government administered by
the United Nations. Making our nation's armed forces the shock troops of the
UN is the goal to which they are committed.

Anthony Lake's "summary" of PDD-25 addresses six "major issues of reform and
improvement" in U.S. military policy. They are:

        * "Making disciplined and coherent choices about which peace
          operations to support...." Note that the option to choose no
          United Nations peace operation at all is not considered. Lake's
          summary cites the following "threats to peace" which could
          result in our forces being committed to a UN operation:
          "Territorial disputes, armed ethnic conflicts, civil wars
          (many of which could spill across international borders), and
          the collapse of government authority in some states...."

        * "Reducing U.S. costs for UN peace operations...." How about
          eliminating all U.S. costs for UN operations? Isn't the federal
          government already $4.5 trillion in debt? Hasn't the President
          forecast another huge budget deficit? The arrangement whereby
          the UN assesses our nation for a percentage of its growing budget
          will actually enable the world body to fleece U.S. taxpayers
          even more than it has in the past.

        * "Defining clearly our policy regarding the command and control
          of American military forces in UN peace operations." While Lake's
          summary assures that the "president will never relinquish command
          authority over U.S. forces," the very next sentence states that
          the President will do exactly that "on a case by case basis."
          Later the document says that the use of American forces should
          "ordinarily" be conducted under U.S. command. No mention is made
          of the constitutional limitations on the President for sending
          troops into war without the explicit permission of Congress.

        * "Reforming and improving the UN's capability to manage peace
          operations." This amounts to committing America's prestige, money,
          military forces, and expertise to build a stronger and more
          meddlesome United Nations. The commitment is so strong that Lake's
          summary includes the possibility of the U.S. sharing sensitive
          information with the UN. Whatever information the UN is given by
          the U.S., of course, the UN can in turn give to other countries,
          including those hostile to us.

        * "Improving the way the U.S. government manages and funds peace
          operations." Once again there is no choice about whether the U.S.
          government should even be involved in UN peace operations. The
          synopsis states that in the future the Department of Defense will
          handle the funding of UN operations, a significant change from
          the past when all UN operations were State Department-funded. UN
          Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali, or his successor, is given carte
          blanche access to the U.S. taxpayers' pocketbook.

        * "Creating better forms of cooperation between the Executive, the
          Congress and the American public on peace operations." The
          synopsis boasts of "seven new proposals" to facilitate the flow
          of information. Ironically, that "flow of information" does not
          extend to PDD-25, which remains secret from Congress and the
          American public.

The Ghali Plan

Senator Trent Lott noted that a plan exists to build a "new world army" for
the United Nations. Such a military force under UN control was the cardinal
point in UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali's An Agenda For Peace,
delivered to the world body in June 1992. As Boutros-Ghali stated at the
time, he wants the nations of the world to supply him with personnel, equip-
ment, and funding to create an armed force to be at his disposal "on a per-
manent basis."

All of this is in the interest of "peace" of course. But the efforts of the
UN, according to this Egyptian bureaucrat, "must encompass matters beyond
military threats." Boutros-Ghali wants a UN army to be involved in "securing
justice and human rights," "promoting social progress and better standards
of life in larger freedom," and attaining "sustainable economic and social
development."

Boutros-Ghali's plan for UN global domination would pose no threat to any
nation were it not for the strong backing he has received from the United
States. And that backing is hardly covert. Three months after Boutros-Ghali
released his Agenda for Peace, President Bush addressed the United Nations
General Assembly, where he called for "a new agenda to strengthen the United
Nations' ability to prevent, contain, and resolve conflict across the globe."
Mr. Bush even offered New Jersey's Fort Dix to the UN "for multinational
training and field exercises."

While Mr. Bush was responding to the Secretary-General's formal proposal,
presidential candidate Bill Clinton had already anticipated the desires of
the UN. In April 1992, while campaigning for the Democratic nomination, the
future President remarked that he wanted to see an international army created
with men who were willing to put their lives on the line for "peace." Pro-
posing a new world army, Clinton said it would be "standing at the borders of
countries threatened by aggression, preventing mass violence against civilian
populations, providing humanitarian relief, and combatting terrorism."

As has been demonstrated before in the pages of The New American, the vision
of a global, unchallengeable UN force wasn't conceived by Secretary-General
Boutros-Ghali. And it wasn't the brainchild of Bill Clinton or George Bush.
The proposal first officially appeared to the public in the form of the 1961
U.S. State Department document Freedom From War: The United States Program
for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World. Introduced to the
UN General Assembly by President John F. Kennedy in September 1961, the
document calls for three stages of worldwide disarmament leading to the
creation of "a U.N. Peace Force, equipped with agreed types and quantities
of armaments."

Freedom From War also states that "progressive controlled disarmament ...
would proceed to a point where no state would have the military power to
challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force." Carry this plan
to its conclusion and national sovereignty would not exist. The UN, with all
the weapons, would be all-powerful.

Repeated admissions by U.S. officials over the past four decades confirm
that this document is not simply some utopian dream that might be implemented
far in the future. It is, without question, the fixed and determined policy
of the U.S. government.

Kuwait, Somalia, and Beyond

After President Bush decided to oppose Iraq's invasion of neighboring Kuwait,
he repeatedly stated that his goal was to use the incident to build a "new
world order." At a press conference on January 9, 1991 he stated that such a
new world order "is only going to be enhanced if this newly activated peace-
keeping function of the United Nations proves to be effective."

Was Desert Storm's main purpose the reinvigoration of the United Nations?
Remember that Mr. Bush went first to the UN, not to the U.S. Congress, for
authorization to wage war against Iraq. And even when he did go to Congress,
just days prior to the UN-established deadline for Iraq's withdrawal from
Kuwait, he asked only for acquiescence to the UN resolutions. He committed
half a million U.S. military personnel to battle without a congressional
declaration of war and without even asking for one. That Congress allowed
him to proceed is a stunning indictment of that entire body.

Only days before the attack was launched, Senators Paul Simon (D-IL) and
George Mitchell (D-ME) visited with Mr. Bush. As members of a group that had
just returned from the Middle East, they had seen the war preparations and
visited the troops being readied for battle. Simon stated in a subsequent
speech to the Senate on January 10, 1991 that he had pleaded with President
Bush on this occasion to "stick with sanctions" and refrain from military
action.

But the President was adamant, said the Illinois senator. He then quoted Mr.
Bush as follows:

        Let me give you this final message. If we use the military, we
        can make the United Nations a really meaningful effective voice
        for peace and stability in the future.

More recently, American troops were sent to Somalia by President Bush on a
"humanitarian" mission. Mr. Bush again bypassed Congress as he sought and
received UN sanction for actions that clearly violated even the UN Charter's
restriction that the world body is not authorized "to intervene in matters
which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of any nation.
Nothing but internal problems were cited as reason to intervene in Somalia.

After Mr. Bush was out of office, President Bill Clinton easily converted the
Somalia "humanitarian" mission into "nation building" and a hunting expedition
for the "warlord" of one Somali faction. And, in an operation fraught with
potential as a precedent for similar action elsewhere, the UN-led force went
about the task of disarming the civilian population.

It was in Somalia that U.S. combat troops were for the first time placed
under the direct command of a foreign national, Turkish General Cevik Bir.
Bungled communications and the inability of our own troops to supply the
needs of fellow Americans because of the UN's presence produced inevitable
casualties and the eventual withdrawal of most of our forces from the area.

Meanwhile, President Clinton was sending U.S. troops to Macedonia across the
border from the former Yugoslavia. And back in the Middle East, 15 Americans
were killed in an attack on U.S. helicopters by U.S. fighter planes in Iraq.
In a telling eulogy for the victims, Vice President Al Gore extended condol-
ences to "the families of those who died in the service of the United
Nations."

In mid-April, blue-helmeted British General Michael Rose huddled with the top
UN official in Bosnia, Japanese diplomat Yasushi Akashi. With the ready
acquiescence of UN Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali, they ordered U.S. fighter
planes into action over Bosnia without consulting first with any U.S. leaders.

War-Making Powers

Appeals claiming to address the "vital interests" of our nation are being
made as each new U.S. troop deployment begins. But legitimate authorization
for the use of our military has to be found in the Constitution. It is here
we find that a President "shall be the commander in chief of the Army and
Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when
called into the actual service of the United States." But it is to the
Congress alone that power is given "to declare war" and "to raise and support
armies."

How can these constitutional requirements be adhered to if the United Nations
is given the authority to command and deploy U.S. troops? Obviously they
cannot.

But the clear language of the Constitution with regard to the U.S. military
has been violated for decades. When American forces went to war in Korea and
in Vietnam without a declaration of war by Congress, the President in each
instance cited powers he claimed by virtue of our nation's membership in
regional agencies of the United Nations: NATO and SEATO. Our nation's combined
losses in those "wars" fought under United Nations oversight amounted to
approximately 100,000 dead and 300,000 wounded.

The military forces of this nation were created to protect the lives and
property of the citizens of this nation. No one has authority to use our
armed forces for humanitarian, peacemaking, or nation-building purposes. If
Americans or American property is attacked, our military must respond
appropriately. And the President should be involved in shaping that response.
Should the provocation be of sufficient magnitude to justify a declaration of
war, Congress alone has the authority to make that decision.

It is, of course, true that the President may be forced to repel a sudden
attack before being able to secure a congressional declaration of war. Our
Founding Fathers recognized this eventuality when they drafted the Constitu-
tion, and for this reason they wisely decided to give the Congress the power
to "declare" war, not "make" war. But the President's authority to act as
"commander in chief" is limited, as well it should be. No President has the
absolute power of a king. Our nation's War for Independence was fought to
extricate ourselves from regal might. As Alexander Hamilton explained in
Federalist Paper #69:

        The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy
        of the United States. In this respect his authority would be
        nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but
        in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing
        more than the supreme command and direction of the military and
        naval forces, as first general and admiral of the Confederacy;
        while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war
        and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies -- all
        which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain
        to the legislature."

And as Abraham Lincoln wrote a century later:

        Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people
        in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of
        the people was the object. This our Convention understood to be
        the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions; and they resolved
        so to frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the
        power of bringing this oppression upon us.

Yet, while most Americans remain totally unaware, a succession of our
Presidents has assumed immense powers over our nation's military forces,
steadily transferring them to the United Nations. Congress, which should be
the protector of the armed forces and the jealous guardian of its powers --
including Congress' sole power to declare war and appropriate funds for the
military -- is not only allowing the office of President to become a king's
domain, but is speeding the day when military personnel will swear allegiance
to the UN's blue rather than to the USA's red, white, and blue.

The Michel Amendment

On June 9, 1994, Representative Robert Michel (R-IL) sought to amend H.R.
4301, the fiscal 1995 Defense Authorization Act, to stop PDD-25 from taking
effect. Michel's measure sought to bar the use of funds for any operation
involving U.S. forces if those forces were "under the operational control of
a foreign national acting directly on behalf of the United Nations." The ban
was to apply to any UN endeavor whether "for the purpose of peacekeeping,
peacemaking, peace-enforcing, or similar activity that is authorized by the
Security Council under Chapter VI or VII of the United Nations Charter."

Michel admitted that his amendment did not overturn the policy of placing
U.S. forces under foreign commanders in UN-led operations, but only placed
"prudent limits on it." In fact, his proposal even contained a loophole
giving the President power to ignore its prohibitions if he complied with a
number of requirements within 15 days of placing troops under foreign command.
Under the proposal the President would have been required to certify that:
a) such an arrangement was "necessary to protect national security interests
of the United States"; b) the American commander who was being subordinated
to a foreign national could report independently to U.S. superiors and refuse
compliance with orders he deemed "illegal, imprudent or beyond the mandate of
the mission"; and c) the U.S. retained the authority to withdraw its forces
"at any time" and to take necessary action to protect them if they were
endangered.

But a majority in the House wasn't satisfied even with the loophole. An
offensive was waged against Michel's amendment, led by Armed Services
Committee Chairman Ron Dellums (D-CA). Dellums received critical support in
the form of a letter from a surprising source -- Joint Chiefs of Chairman
General John Shalikashvili and Defense Secretary William Perry. In their
letter, Shalikashvili and Perry ignore the crucial issue of America's
sovereignty, noting:

        Americans frequently have served and are serving today under
        foreign operational control. In NATO and in Korea, American
        military personnel serve under allied commanders every day.
        Military leaders view unity of command as a fundamental issue.
        It is an essential ingredient in achieving victory at an
        acceptable cost.

        ... Certainly, we support the concept that U.S. forces must
        serve under the ablest commanders, but with clear and effective
        command-and-control arrangements in place. However, we disagree
        with the inference of the proposed amendment that foreign
        commanders in U.N. operations cannot effectively operate American
        forces when the President decides it is appropriate to make such
        arrangements.

        Our military officers are not about to recommend to the nation's
        leaders that troops be placed under a commander who lacks military
        skills, competence, and judgment.

        The language of the amendment seems to assume otherwise.

        In sum, we believe this proposed legislation is ill-advised and
        potentially harmful to the execution of military operations. We
        urge that the House of Representatives not approve this
        legislation.

Following the aggressive campaign by Dellums and company, Michel's modest
amendment was defeated in the House by a vote of 237 to 185. As a result of
PDD-25 and the refusal of Congress to challenge it, anyone serving in the
U.S. military now faces the very real prospect of being forced into a UN
operation led by someone other than a fellow American. And the long-evolving
goals of 1961's Freedom From War program are a huge step closer to fulfill-
ment.

A Program for Americans

Americans who intend to stay free and who are determined to pass along to
their children the marvelous privilege of living in the independent United
States of America must get busy. Here is some of what can be done:

        * Contact your U.S. representative and senators and demand that
          PDD-25 be made available to the public.

        * Contact the National Security Council, Washington DC 20506 to
          obtain a copy of the "Executive Summary" of PDD-25.

        * Find out how your U.S. representative voted on the Michel
          amendment, and let him know what you think of his vote. Urge
          both your U.S. representative and senators to block any moves
          to compromise U.S. sovereignty.

        * Let your elected state officials know the direction our nation's
          leaders are taking regarding America's sovereignty and the use
          of our nation's military. Ask them to sponsor resolutions at the
          state level to block the transfer of U.S. forces to the UN, to
          deny funding for UN operations involving U.S. forces under UN
          command, and to deny funding for any military action aimed at
          Haiti. (For examples of such state legislation, see the following
          issues of The New American: May 16, 1994, page 17; June 27, 1994,
          page 13.)

Realize that the only sure method to block the complete delivery of our
nation's military to the United Nations is to Get US out of the United
Nations!

END
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New American -- July 11, 1994
Copyright 1994 -- American Opinion Publishing, Incorporated.
P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI  54913
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The BIRCH BARK BBS / 414-242-5070