Another United Nations War?

Ron Paul ^ | February 28, 2003 | Ron Paul, M.D., and a Republican member of Congress from Texas

[exodus]

Another United Nations War?

By Ron Paul, M.D., and a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
February 28, 2003

President Bush Sr. proudly spoke of "The New World Order," a term used by those who promote one-world government under the United Nations. In going to war in 1991, he sought and received UN authority to push Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. He forcefully stated that this UN authority was adequate, and that although a congressional resolution was acceptable, it was entirely unnecessary and he would proceed regardless. At that time there was no discussion regarding a congressional declaration of war. The first Persian Gulf War therefore was clearly a UN, political war fought within UN guidelines, not for U.S. security – and it was not fought through to victory. The bombings, sanctions, and harassment of the Iraqi people have never stopped. We are now about to resume the active fighting. Although this is referred to as the second Persian Gulf War, it’s merely a continuation of a war started long ago, and is likely to continue for a long time even after Saddam Hussein is removed from power.

Our attitude toward the United Nations is quite different today compared to 1991. I have argued for years against our membership in the United Nations because it compromises our sovereignty. The U.S. has always been expected to pay an unfair percentage of UN expenses. I contend that membership in the United Nations has led to impractical military conflicts that were highly costly both in lives and dollars, and that were rarely resolved.

Our 58 years in Korea have seen 33,000 lives lost, 100,000 casualties, and over a trillion dollars in today’s dollars spent. Korea is the most outrageous example of our fighting a UN war without a declaration from the U.S. Congress. And where are we today? On the verge of a nuclear confrontation with a North Korean regime nearly out of control. And to compound the irony, the South Koreans are intervening in hopes of diminishing the tensions that exist between the United States and North Korea!

As bad as the Vietnam nightmare was, at least we left and the UN was not involved. We left in defeat and Vietnam remained a unified communist country. The results have been much more salutary. Vietnam is now essentially non-communist, and trade with the West is routine. We didn’t disarm Vietnam, we never counted their weapons, and so far no one cares. Peaceful relations have developed between our two countries, not by force of arms, but through trade and friendship. No United Nations, no war, and no inspections served us well – even after many decades of war and a million deaths inflicted on the Vietnamese in an effort by both the French and the United States to force them into compliance with Western demands.

But in this new battle with Iraq, our relationship with the United Nations and our allies is drawing a lot of attention. The administration now says it would be nice to have UN support, but it’s not necessary. The President argues that a unilateralist approach is permissible with his understanding of national sovereignty. But no mention is made of the fact that the authority to go to war is not a UN prerogative, and that such authority can only come from the U.S. Congress.

Although the argument that the United Nations cannot dictate to us what is in our best interest is correct, and we do have a right to pursue foreign policy unilaterally, it’s ironic that we’re making this declaration in order to pursue an unpopular war that very few people or governments throughout the world support. But the argument for unilateralism and national sovereignty cannot be made for the purpose of enforcing UN Security Council resolutions. That doesn’t make any sense. If one wants to enforce UN Security Council resolutions, that authority can only come from the United Nations itself. We end up with the worst of both worlds: hated for our unilateralism, but still lending credibility to the UN.

The Constitution makes it clear that if we must counter a threat to our security, that authority must come from the U. S. Congress. Those who believe, and many sincerely do, that the United Nations serves a useful function, argue that ignoring the United Nations at this juncture will surely make it irrelevant. Even with my opposition to the United Nations, I can hardly be pleased that its irrelevancy might come about because of our rush to war against a nation that has not aggressed against us nor poses any threat to us. From my viewpoint the worst scenario would be for the United Nations to sanction this war, which may well occur if we offer enough U.S. taxpayer money and Iraqi oil to the reluctant countries. If that happens we could be looking at another 58-year occupation, expanded Middle East chaos, or a dangerous spread of hostilities to all of Asia or even further.

With regard to foreign affairs, the best advice comes from our Founders and the Constitution. It is better to promote peace and commerce with all nations, and exclude ourselves from the entangling, dangerous, complex, and unworkable alliances that come with our membership in the United Nations.

[exodus]

I’ll take your word that I misquoted you. I apologize.

**********************

I would take someone's word too, elfman2. It's way too much trouble to go back through the thread searching for things like that.

You're forgiven, my friend.

[elfman2 on another computer]

"Hence, if they decline to do their job in a particular case, the law is still unconstitutional, but simply hasn't been officially "discovered" to be so. So it's only in that sense that it's as good as legal."

I don’t disagree. And since there have been rulings that dismiss rather than ignore challenges to congressional authorization for the use of force without explicitly declaring war, they have ruled, and it’s legal until otherwise stayed or overturned.

[inquest]

This is the kind of flexibility that our enemies probably didn’t expect of this nation when they declared war on us.

Why is it so essential that this "flexibility" be exercised by the President rather than Congress?

[Mo1]

And I have a problem with people who refuse to get it.

[inquest]

Congressmen and the President are still violating their oath by doing it. They're sworn to uphold the Constitution, not judicial rulings based thereupon.

[exodus]

As for the thing about Hamilton, that was in reference to an incident that occurred prior to the congressional resolution, when American naval vessels captured a Barbary vessel, then released it on Jefferson's orders, citing the lack of official hostilities. Hamilton castigated him for that, saying that the immediate situation called for keeping the vessel in captivity.

**********************

I spent a lot of time on this once, disputing this very point with Texasforever on a different, but simular, situation. I'll use the short method, and just state that in my expert opinion, my opinion is the correct one. :))

[William Terrell]

I think you’re mistaken. Refusal to take a case is a court ruling that the case has no merit, and that the constitutional challenge is groundless.

Well, no, there are several ways that a court can refuse to hear a case that has nothing to do with the merits of the issues in question. This judge used one. He wimped out. He could have taken it.

There was a most important constitutional question involved. The transfer of powers from the legislative branch to the executive branch is what happens when the legislative branch lets the executive branch go to war without a formal declararion under 1-8-11.

If that's not a violation of the separation of powers, we're so far gone as to moot any of this discussion.

Plus, this is a federal district court. A federal district court can't "settle" a constitutional issue by refusing to hear it, WHATEVER THE REASON they don't, as far I can tell.

[William Terrell]

I agree. If we don't formally use Art 1, sec 8, cl 11 to authorize the people of the US to go to war, and still go to war, we have to be doing it under the authority of the UN.

The president has no constitutional authority to declare war and there is no justifiable way the legislative branch can transfer constitutionally granted powers reserved in article 1 to the executive branch created and empowered in article 2. If the supreme court says they can, the supreme court is wrong.

Does that "grant" of powers to the executive include "grant(ing) letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make(ing) Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water"? I doubt it.

So, if the president takes us to war with a foreign country without using constitutional granted powers, he must be acting on powers given to him by the UN. Could it have something to do with that unknown executive order used to burn Michael New for refusing to wear the UN beret, when the uniform of the US military is clearly defined?

[elfman2 on another computer]

"I would take someone's word too, elfman2. It's way too much trouble to go back through the thread searching for things like that.
You're forgiven, my friend. "

Looks like I apologized too early. Maybe you should have gone back yourself and reread your own post before adopting that condescending tone with me.

"You think that the Constitution isn't explicit? My reading of the document resulted in a different opinion. The Constitution if [is] very explicit on every issue…"

[inquest]

Based on the fact that they're being abused, to put it quite simply. War is a serious matter, not something to be trifled with at the whim of a single executive. The people with names like Jefferson, Hamilton, and Adams didn't try to make themselves the role of arbiter of war and peace. They understood the true meaning of the word "executive", i.e., one who "executes" policy decided by Congress. The people with names like Bush, Johnson, and Truman, by contrast, have inserted themselves into the legislative business.

[exodus]

To: inquest
You give credence to one congressional authorization (read: not a declaration of war) to wage war simply because the people involved had names like Jefferson, Hamilton, and Adams, but want to discredit similar, contemporary congressional authorizations based on what exactly?

**********************

True, Darkdrake. Either it's legal, or it's not. Jefferson didn't want to go to war without a declaration from Congress, but was intimidated into going to war, anyway.

Jefferson's compliance with that Congressional pressure was his only cowardly decision as far as I know.

Jefferson is my favorite Founder.

[inquest]

I'm confused; what opinion would that be, exactly?

[elfman2 on another computer]

"Congressmen and the President are still violating their oath by doing it. They're sworn to uphold the Constitution, not judicial rulings based thereupon."

And the Constitution authorizes the judiciary to decide if an action is in violation, and it has spoken.

[inquest]

It only gives the judiciary the responsibility to decide on particular cases, using the Constitution as a guide. It nowhere states that they are the final authority on what the Constitution actually says.

[exodus]

Okay, I apologize in turn.

I mispoke there. The Constitution is very explicit on every governmental power, but not on every possible issue.

Does that cover it?

[elfman2 on another computer]

William, we haven’t spoken since you wasted my time about a year ago evasive little games. Don’t address me now. I’m not going to follow you around in circles trying to get you to stay on subject again.

[elfman2 on another computer]

" Does that cover it?"

Fair enough.